9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Court can permit the litigant to amend the petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Summary: Issue 1: Amendment of Petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 An interesting question, "whether the Court, before which a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is pending, can permit the litigant to amend the petition?" has arisen for consideration? Claiming to be the wife of the petitioner, the respondent filed M.C.No.12 of 2004 for maintenance. The petitioner denied the marriage and the birth of the child. Subsequently, the respondent sought to amend the petition regarding the age, date of marriage, and details of certain immovable properties. The petitioner opposed, contending no provision allows such amendment and it would change the character of the petition. The Magistrate allowed the petition, prompting the petitioner to seek revision. The first contention of the petitioner was the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering the Magistrate to entertain such a petition for amendment, arguing that the concept of amendment is unknown to criminal law. Conversely, the respondent argued that in the absence of a specific prohibition, the trial Court was right in entertaining the amendment petition, as it would not change the character of the claim or cause prejudice to the petitioner. Considering the public importance of the question, the Court requested Mr. V. Padmanabhan, SC, as Amicus Curiae, who submitted that since the proceeding u/s 125 of the Code is quasi-civil, such amendments could be permitted. He relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The Court discussed the nature of proceedings u/s 125 of the Code, noting it is a social legislation to protect women/children/parents in need of support. Though filed before a criminal court, the right decided is purely civil in nature, making the proceeding quasi-civil and quasi-criminal. While there is no specific provision for amendment in the Code, courts have allowed amendments to correct curable infirmities in complaints. The Supreme Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Messrs Modi Distillery and others held that legal infirmities easily curable by formal amendment could be allowed. This principle was reiterated in subsequent judgments, including M/s. Egmore Benefit Society Limited v. K. Balasigamani and K.K. Saravanakumar v. V. Saravanan. In Nallan v. Palaniammal, it was held that even without a specific provision, amendments could be allowed in the interest of justice. The Kerala High Court in Sainulabdheen v. Beena also supported this view, indicating a uniform judicial opinion that amendments in petitions u/s 125 of the Code are maintainable under certain conditions. On the facts of the case, the Court held that the amendments sought would not change the nature or character of the proceeding. The respondent must still prove the marriage, birth of the child, and the petitioner's income. Thus, the Magistrate's decision to allow the amendment was upheld. In the result, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
|
