JUDGMENT The non-applicant filed a petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 27.3.1989 against the applicant Smt. Sushma on the ground of cruelty, amongst others. On 24.7.1989 the applicant-wife filed her written statement refuting the allegations made by the non-applicant and contended that no ground is made out for divorce. On 21.9.1990 an application was moved by the non-applicant under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the petition, bringing-forth the facts constituting the incidents of cruelty dated 17.8.1988. The trial Court allowed this amendment application by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the trial Court should not have allowed the amendment application, particularly so when it is in relation to the facts which had happened prior to the institution of the divorce petition. It is settled law that delay cannot be a ground for refusing amendment, unless it can be exhibited that the amendment sought for changes the nature of the suit or is barred by limitation. Both these ingredients are lacking in this case. There is no inordinate delay in moving the application for amendment of the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The amendment sought for was only for incorporating additional facts on which divorce is sought. Under these facts, the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant's application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for ad interim maintenance and expenses was wrongly rejected by the trial Court on the grounds which are not germane for passing such an order. The application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that it is not supported by an affidavit and it does not disclose necessary facts as to how much salary is earned by the applicant-wife on the face of the admission made by her that she is in service. In my opinion, the trial Court could have given opportunity to the applicant-wife by way of amendment of her application and asking her to file an affidavit in support thereof. However, such an infirmity in the order will not make the order illegal. In my opinion, the trial Court could have given opportunity to the applicant-wife by way of amendment of her application and asking her to file an affidavit in support thereof. However, such an infirmity in the order will not make the order illegal. But in the circumstances of the case, I feel that the applicant-wife may be given an opportunity, if so thought just and proper by her, to amend her application afresh under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for ad interim maintenance and the trial Court shall consider that application, if and when filed, in accordance with law. With these observations, this revision is dismissed without any order as to costs.