A petition for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be changed to become a divorce complaint: High Court of Bombay Amaresh Patel Court Judgment Sun, Jul 17, 2022, at ,07:44 PM The Bombay High Court overturned a family court order allowing an application for restitution of conjugal rights to be amended into a plea for dissolution of marriage, ruling that the requested amendment was not warranted.Judge Bharati Dangre ruled that the prevention of multiple litigation could not be grounds for amendment applications to reverse the ultimate remedy, and also stated that the courts should prevent dishonest or useless amendments from being made."Just because this would result in a large amount of litigation, there can be no reason to allow an amendment on the merits, as the court must exercise caution while granting the amendment motion and discourage worthless and/or dishonest amendments," reads the 21-page statement.The wife had filed an application for reinstatement of marital rights in 2018.Two years later, she sought to amend the application by replacing the prayer for restoration of broken relationships with the prayer for a divorce. The amendment request stated that the marriage could not be saved and that her husband's behavior revealed that the pursuit of compensation was futile.The Bandra family court approved the change, which the husband in the current appeal contested before the High Court. According to the husband's attorney, Malcolm Siganporia, the Civil Procedure Code's provisions apply to the family court for all intents and purposes, thus the rules that are typically used in civil proceedings also apply to cases that are brought before the Family Court. In his representation of the wife, senior attorney Rafique Dada claimed that every court should make an effort to prevent the proliferation of lawsuits. Dada argued that delicate and sensitive matrimonial issues should be handled leniently, with the goal of restoring normal marital ties before allowing for a dignified dissolution in the event that this is not possible.The wife's change to the application for relief was foreign and at odds with the initial reliefs requested in the application, according to Justice Dangre. "Whether the modification is required for resolution of the actual subject in disagreement should serve as the fundamental standard for guiding the judges' discretion. In light of the arguments made in the wife's petition, the amendmental relief requested is unique, entirely extrinsic, and unrelated to the one originally requested. The prayers that are wholly incompatible with the original petition and the reliefs requested therein are the additional prayer sections that are sought to be introduced, "said the Court. The High Court granted the writ petition and overturned the family court ruling after finding that the family court egregiously failed to take into account the whole context of the provision allowing grant of amendment.