N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

2. Application filed by the petitioner husband seeking amendment to his reply filed to the maintenance application of the respondent wife was rejected by the learned Family Court. The husband has challenged his rejection by this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as the husband and the wife.

3. The wife filed Petition No. E-443 of 2013 in the Family Court, Nagpur under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 claiming maintenance @ Rs. 35,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 15,000/- per month for the son Yunay. By filing application Exh.-6, the wife claimed interim maintenance at the same rate from the husband.

4. The husband filed his reply on 13.02.2014 to both the applications and resisted the claim of the wife. The learned Family Court allowed interim maintenance application Exh.-6 (I.A. No. 688 of 2013) and directed the husband to pay interim maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from 01.09.2013 and @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the son Yunav from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015 and thereafter @ Rs. 10,000/- per month from 01.09.2013 till further order.

5. The husband unsuccessfully challenged the order of interim maintenance passed in favour of the wife and the son by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 875 of 2015. The husband challenged the order of interim maintenance before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed following order:

"(ix) With respect to the issue of enhancement of maintenance for the son, the Respondent is at liberty to move the Family Court for the said relief. We cannot grant this relief in the present appeal, as it has been filed by the husband.

(x) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we order and direct that:

(a) The judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Family Court, Nagpur affirmed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench vide Order dated 14.08.2018 for payment of interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to the Respondent No. 1-wife, and Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the Respondent No. 2-son, is hereby affirmed by this Court;

(b) The husband is directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m., within a period of 12 weeks' from the date of this Judgment, and continue to comply with this Order during the pendency of the proceedings u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court;

(c) If the Appellant-husband fails to comply with the aforesaid directions of this Court, it would be open to the respondents to have the Order enforced u/S. 128 Cr.P.C., and take recourse to all other remedies which are available in accordance with law;

(d) The proceedings for payment of interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. have been pending between the parties for a period of over 7 years now. We deem it appropriate that the Family Court decides the substantive application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. in Petition No. E-443/2013 finally, in light of the directions/guidelines issued in the present judgment, within a period of 6 months' from the date of this judgment."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Part-B of its judgment laid down following general guidelines to be followed by all the courts in the maintenance matters:

(xi) Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

(a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrate's Court, as the case may be, throughout the country;

(b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;

(c) The respondent must submit the reply alongwith the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent.

If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the Affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the Court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be willful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings.

On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on basis of the Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;

(d) The above format may be modified by the concerned Court, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the concerned Court, to issue necessary directions in this regard.

(e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the concerned Court may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof.

(f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order XI of the CPC;

On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order X of the C.P.C. or Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so;

The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned.

(g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination.

(h) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceeding u/S. 340 Cr.P.C., and for contempt of Court.

(i) In case the parties belong to the Economically Weaker Sections ("EWS"), or are living Below the Poverty Line ("BPL"), or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the Affidavit would be dispensed with.

(j) The concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrate's Court must make an endeavour to decide the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court.

(k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court.

7. In the meanwhile, the wife had filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence before the learned Family Court on 14.09.2017. Thereafter, her further examination in chief was recorded on 14.01.2019, 24.11.2020 and 01.12.2020. The matter was then posted for cross-examination of the wife on 10.12.2020. At that day, adjournment was sought by the husband and the matter was posted on 17.12.2020.

8. On 17.12.2020, the husband filed application (Exh.-305) seeking amendment in his original reply filed by him to the application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife. He contended in the application that while deciding the Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed guidelines, wherein it was directed that the parties shall file their respective documents, affidavits, declaration of assets, etc. At the time of filing of reply in the proceedings, some documents were not available with him. Therefore, those pleadings were not incorporated in the reply. Thereafter, some documents have come into the possession of the husband and some of them were already filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they were within the knowledge of the wife. It was contended that the documents pertained to income tax returns of the husband, Rajind Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bank letters from which it can be ascertained that all the business of the husband were already closed prior to the marriage of the husband and the wife. Therefore, he sought to amend his reply by adding para nos. 30 to 59 in his original reply. It was further contended that the amendment was necessary to bring true facts before the Court and it was necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to ascertain the quantum of maintenance. According to the husband, no loss or prejudice would be caused to the wife, if application is allowed, hence he prayed for allowing the amendment.

9. The wife opposed the application by filing her reply contending that the proceedings are at the stage of her cross-examination. The husband has always delayed the proceedings by filing several frivolous applications. The husband has failed to respond to the notices and directions of the Family Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to decide the proceedings within six months from the date of order i.e. from 04.11.2020. Since the wife has already disclosed her entire case in her affidavit by filing her affidavit in lieu of evidence and by producing the documents, she wanted to rely upon. Serious prejudice will be caused to her, if the amendment is permitted, since the trial has already commenced, the amendment may not be permitted. According to her, the amendment would completely change the nature of the proceedings. It was further stated that the proposed amendment sought to bring on record the facts and documents, which were available to the husband before filing his reply on 13.02.2014. Even at the time of filing reply to the amendment carried out by the wife, on 17.03.2017, the husband had failed to incorporate this amendment. Further contention was that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not permit the amendment of pleadings, but directed the parties to file affidavits and respective documents disclosing their assets and liabilities. The wife, therefore prayed for rejection of the application.

10. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties rejected the application observing that long back the husband had filed reply on 28.03.2014. He was called upon to produce the documents vide order below Exh.-61 dated 30.06.2015. The husband in pursuance of that order had filed his affidavit at Exh.-71 on 30.07.2015. There was a direction form the Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the proceedings within six months from the date of judgment i.e. from 04.11.2020. The further examination in chief of the wife was already recorded on 24.11.2020 and 01.12.2020 and the case was posted for cross-examination of the wife on 10.12.2020. On that date, adjournment was sought, which was granted by way of last chance and the matter was fixed on 17.12.2020. On that date, the husband moved the application relying on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Family Court observed that however, there were no such directions to file documents by way of amendment in the pleadings. It was held that trial had already commenced and allowing the application would cause prejudice to the wife. The learned Family Court, therefore, rejected the application.

11. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri. A. Jaiswal, for the husband and the learned advocate Mrs. Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar for the wife.

12. The learned Senior advocate for the husband has taken me through the pleadings in the original reply and in the amendment application and submitted that no new case was being pleaded in the amendment application. According to him, the husband was only elaborating the contentions raised in his reply. He further submitted that the amendment of pleadings was necessary, the cross-examination of the wife is yet to begin. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the ratio in State of Bihar and others Vr. Modern Tent House and another 2017(8) SCC 567, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the amendment of written statement after completion of the evidence of the wife as the amendment was sought only to elaborate and amplify the defence already taken. Reliance is also placed in a decision in Teotonio Faustino Vas and another Vrs. Ana Maria Rodrigues, a decision of the Learned Single Judge at Goa, in support of the said argument. He submitted that the husband has no intention to protract the matter and he would cooperate to complete the proceedings within a period of six months in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that the impugned order be set aside and application be allowed.

13. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the wife vehemently opposed the prayer of the husband. She submitted that the trial has already commenced and the husband is trying to prolong the matter. All these contentions in the proposed amendment were available to the husband at the time of filing his reply and/or amended reply. The husband is trying to make out a new case. The application lacks bonafides on the part of the husband and the same is filed at a belated stage, there is lack of due diligence on the part of the husband in filing the present application. She submitted that the conditions mentioned in Order 6 Rule 17 are not fulfilled and the learned trial Court was therefore justified in rejecting the application. She submitted that amendment in the written statement should not be allowed after commencement of the trial. She argued that the learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned order and the criminal writ petition is devoid of any substance and it may be rejected. She placed reliance in the following judgments:

i) Vidyabai and others Vrs. Padmalatha and another, 2009 (2) SCC 409 [LQ/SC/2008/2480]

ii) Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRS. Vrs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another, 2008 (14) SCC 364 [LQ/SC/2008/1220]

iii) Chander Kanta Bansal Vrs. Rajinder Singh Anand, 2008 (5) SCC 117 [LQ/SC/2008/653]

iv) M. Revanna Vrs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others, 2019 (4) SCC 332 [LQ/SC/2019/277] .

14. The record indicates that the wife is granted interim maintenance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the husband to pay arrears of interim maintenance within a stipulated time. The learned Senior advocate for the husband makes a statement that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted extension for depositing arrears of interim maintenance.

15. While deciding the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to decide the proceedings before the Family Court, in the light of the directions/guidelines issued in the judgment, within a period of six months from the date of judgment i.e. 04.11.2020.

16. On comparison of the averments made in the earlier reply and in the proposed amendment, it is clear that the proposed amendment is on the same facts and the husband is trying to elaborate and amplify his defence, which he already taken in his reply. It is not possible to accept the argument of the wife that the husband is trying to make out a new case.

17. Though the wife has filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence, her cross is yet to begin. The present proceedings since is filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, strict Rules of pleadings would not be applicable to the present matter. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the parties to file the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities, as per the format given in the judgment. The affidavits thus would form part of pleadings of the parties.

18. In the impugned order, the learned Family Court has observed that the proceedings are filed under Section 125 are of a summary nature and rigid Rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applicable for the proceedings before the Family Court in terms of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, "the said Act") and the other documents if they are relevant, they could be considered under Section 14 of the said Act. In the light of these observations the learned Family Court ought to have allowed the application, as no new case was being made out by the husband and he was only trying to elaborate his defence.

19. The learned Family Court erred in holding that there were no directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to file documents by way of amendment in the pleadings. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the true purport of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

20. The argument of the wife that serious prejudice would be caused to her, if the amendment is allowed as she has already led her evidence and opened her case and placed all the documents on record is liable to be rejected, in as much as, the wife has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence reproducing the contentions raised in her application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No new facts or documents are pleaded or produced on record by the wife. In these circumstances, if the amendment is allowed at this stage, no prejudice would be caused to the wife. The wife would be entitled to carry out consequential amendment in her pleadings and evidence.

21. In State of Bihar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

8. We have perused the amendment application filed by the appellants. We find that firstly, the proposed amendment is on facts and the appellants in substance seek to elaborate the facts originally pleaded in the written statement; secondly and in other words, it is in the nature of amplification of the defence already taken; thirdly, it does not introduce any new defence compared to what has originally been pleaded in the written statement; fourthly, if allowed, it would neither result in changing the defence already taken nor will result in withdrawing any kind of admission, if made in the written statement; fifthly, there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs, if such amendment is allowed because notwithstanding the defence or/and the proposed amendment, the initial burden to prove the case continues to remain on the plaintiffs; and lastly, since the trial is not yet completed, it is in the interest of justice that the proposed amendment of the defendants should have been allowed by the Courts below rather than to allow the defendants to raise such plea at the appellate stage, if occasion so arises.

This ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision in Teotonio Faustino Vas (supra) also supports the case of the petitioner.

22. The decisions relied upon by the wife in Vidyabai (supra), Rajkumar (supra), Chander (supra) and M. Revenna (supra), since are distinguishable since they are rendered in different facts and hence, would not help the case of the wife.

23. As in the facts of the present case, the amendment is sought to amplify and elaborate the defence and the same is being done in accordance with the guidelines and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the present proceeding is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., conjoint reading of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 14 of the said Act, indicates that strict Rules of pleading are not applicable to the proceedings filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. In terms of Section 14 of the said Act, the Family Court is entitled to receive "as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872," the Family Court ought to have allowed the application.

24. It is settled legal position that the Courts have to be liberal in granting amendments. For giving fair opportunity to the husband, it is necessary to allow his prayer for amendment of his reply. For belated filing of the application, the wife can be compensated by imposing costs on the husband and the apprehension of the trial Court as well as the wife that the husband was trying to protract the matter can be taken care of by giving appropriate directions.

25. In view of the aforestated reasons, following order is passed:

i) Criminal Writ Petition No. 87 of 2021 is allowed.

ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur below Exh.-305 in Petition No. E-443 of 2013 dated 19.01.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside, subject to the petitioner husband paying the costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent wife.

iii) The husband shall carry out the amendment on or before 1st of March, 2021 and the wife shall be permitted to carry out consequential amendment in her pleadings and evidence on or before 6th of March, 2021. The trial shall proceed from the stage of recording the evidence of the wife on 8th of March, 2021.

iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms.