H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the order dated 28-8-1996 passed by Sri s. b. deshpande, civil judge and assistant sessions judge, athani, on la. I application for amendment of the pleadings in petition for divorce, viz. , matrimonial case No. 16 of 1995. The trial court rejected the amendment application taking a view that it was belated and afterthought and that the amendment if allowed would introduce a new case or new cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has erroneously taken a view that the amendment will amount to introducing a new cause of action or case. The learned counsel contended that the amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determination of the dispute between the parties, and the amendment in question was necessary to amplify the pleadings and even if it is belated it has got to be allowed, because it is not going to cause any injustice. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is hotly been contested by the respondent's counsel, by Sri mahantesh hosmath. According to him, the court below was not wrong in rejecting the amendment by taking a view that the amendment was contrary to the main petition and that the same was not maintainable. the order cannot be said to be suffering from jurisdictional error. He further submitted that the amendment sought is most belated and there is no explanation why the said allegations were not mentioned in the main petition. ( 2 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is beyond doubt confined to jurisdictional error coming within the framework of either of clause (a), (b) or (c ). When the court below misreads the pleadings and arrives at a conclusion on a question upon which the court can exercise the jurisdiction to allow the amendment it may be said to be a case of jurisdictional error and the court may be said to be either illegally refusing to exercise the jurisdiction or may be said to be illegally usurping the jurisdiction when it acts without properly appreciating the pleadings of the parties. In the present case, the trial court does not appear to have read nor to have considered the allegations made at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the main petition for dissolution of marriage by divorce. That on a reading of amendment application and amendments sought along with the allegations made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the main petition, it can be said the proposed amendments cannot be said to be making out a new case instead it amounts to amplification of what has been stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition. The proposed amendments read as hereinafter. thereafter para 3 the following was sought to be added as para 3-a to the main petition:"after marriage, on the same day i. e. , on 17-3-1985, the respondent, came to the house of petitioner in madhavanagar, to lead married life. After completion of religious ceremonies petitioner and respondent visited their family deity (kuladevata) narasimha temple situated in sangawade village, near kolhapur, on 26-3-1985. on the same day night both of them stayed in hotel ananda malhar in kolhapur. On the said night, when this petitioner at- tempte with love and affection to provoke respondent to make ready hes for sexual intercourse. This petitioner when expressed his intention, this respondent behaved in a very untoward and abnormal manner with the petitioner. The respondent, has not shown any positive response to the petitioner, to love and affection towards petitioner. This petitioner's attempt went in vain. The respondent, was not ready for sexual intercourse throughout the night. This petitioner tolerated the incident and hoped that after lapse of some days, she will be alright in future". that in para 4 of main petition following was sought to be added or nserted after 5th line thereof. "in the house of petitioner in Madras which was rented house with two separate rooms. In between two rooms there was a passage. this respondent was not properly doing domestic work, whole day, she used to read religious books and her mind was always towards religious things. She was not intending to co-operate with petitioner for marital life. For so many days the respondent was not allowing this petitioner to sleep in the same room wherein the respondent used to sleep. But when this petitioner advised her to behave properly and asked to stay in one room at night, hut it went in vain. She was not intending to co-operate with petitioner for marital life. For so many days the respondent was not allowing this petitioner to sleep in the same room wherein the respondent used to sleep. But when this petitioner advised her to behave properly and asked to stay in one room at night, hut it went in vain. No change was effected in the behaviour of respondent. when this petitioner forced the respondent for sexual intercourse, she was shouting and unnecessarily causing mental torture. The petitioner became helpless with fear of losing his reputation in the society and so he kept mum. The respondent resided with the petitioner, for a short period from July 1985 to 13-11-1985, but she never allowed the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her. Life of petitioner become dry and he lost interest in the life as well as in the respondent, on account of her "bickering nature". This petitioner tried to know reason behind it. he found that she has no interest in the day-to-day's life. Her all attitude showed that she wished to became 'sanyasini'. Her two uncles were jain muni, hence this respondent is also under the influence and approaching towards vairagya attitude. One more reason known to this petitioner is that opponent's cousin sister residing in the same village has already left her matrimonial house, and residing with her parents. Thus with the help of the maintenance amount the opponent wished to live separately from the petitioner. Her entire attitude shows that she is not having any intimacy towards her husband i. e. , this petitioner. The petitioner further respectfully submits prior to his marriage with this opponent, marriage of opponent was fixed with one person from village khavatknop tq-athani. Accordingly, marriage was about to perform however this opponent has strangely without any reason refused to marry with the said man by saying that she has no interest in any matrimonial life". it will be appropriate at this stage to quote paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition made under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition reads as under. "4. After marriage the respondent came only in July 1985 and both parties resided at 77, chinnamman koli street, changalpattu, doing business at 14, chinnammankoli street, changalpattu. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition reads as under. "4. After marriage the respondent came only in July 1985 and both parties resided at 77, chinnamman koli street, changalpattu, doing business at 14, chinnammankoli street, changalpattu. ever since marriage the respondent has not been affectionate to the petitioner and she was not attending to the comforts of the petitioner. She was always disobedient. The petitioner was not given the conjugal happiness expected to be given by a wife. she was neglecting the petitioner, without any justifiable cause. advises and persuasions did not have the desired effect. ( 3 ) THE respondent lived with the petitioner till 13-11-1985. On 11-11-1985 the petitioner's brother died after he was involved in an accident. The petitioner, and the respondent along with all relations went for the same. The respondent stayed back and refused to return with the petitioner in spite of the request by the petitioner. Thus it was clear that she was not anxious to lead marital life with the petitioner and abandoned him, even though petitioner wanted to live with her. Her living away from the petitioner is without any justifiable cause and she has ever since deserted the petitioner without lawful excuse. It has become apparent that she has no intention of joining the petitioner and she never returned after she left on 13-11-1985. Ever since then the petitioner has been living separately at changalpattu". paragraph 4 very clearly reveals that ever since the marriage the respondent was not or had not been affectionate towards the petitioner and she was not attending to the comforts of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the petitioner was not given conjugal happiness expected to be given by a wife. The allegations are no doubt vague. So it appears that the petitioner by addition of paragraph 3 (a) wanted to amplify what has been stated in paragraph 4. In paragraph 5 also it has been stated that the respondent was not anxious to lead marital life with the petitioner. There can be abandonment and cruelty, when husband and wife live together and urge of sex also being a natural urge, the deprivation thereof of either of the party to the other in an unreasonable manner may provide a ground if it is established amounting to cruelty. These amendments also explain what has been stated in paragraph 5. There can be abandonment and cruelty, when husband and wife live together and urge of sex also being a natural urge, the deprivation thereof of either of the party to the other in an unreasonable manner may provide a ground if it is established amounting to cruelty. These amendments also explain what has been stated in paragraph 5. so the amendment that has been sought by the applicant by moving the amendment application can well be said to be amplification. no doubt, the amendment sought to be made is belated and really these assertions have to be made at the earliest point of time. It is well-settled that where the amendment sought results in making out a new case or a new cause of action in the sense as explained by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of a. k. gupta and sons limited v damodar valley corporation1, these amendments cannot be allowed. But where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts the amendment has to be allowed even after the expiry of the period of limitation. Their lordships have explained the law as to new case or new cause of action and when it may be allowed even after the expiry of limitation in paragraphs 7 to-9. The materials observations of their lordships reads as under. " (7) it is not in dispute that at the date of the application for amendment a suit for a money claim under the contract was barred. The general Rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred. weldon v neale2. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. See charan das v amir khan and l. j. leach and company limited v jar dine skinner and company. See charan das v amir khan and l. j. leach and company limited v jar dine skinner and company. (8) the principal reasons that have led to the Rule last mentioned are first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (cropper v smith), and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended kisandas rupchand v rachappa vithoba, approved in pirgonda hongonda patil v kalgonda shidgonda patil. (9) the expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in cooke v gill, in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to charge or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in robinson v unions property corporation limited, and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words "new case" have been understood to mean "new set of ideas". Dorman v j. w. ellis and company limited. This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time". as the amendment really appears to be amplification of what is stated in the petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it does not amount to a new case as explained by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. Thus, in my opinion, the court below acted illegally in holding that the application for amendment was misconceived and not maintainable. By taking such an erroneous opinion the court below acted illegally in rejecting the amendment application, thus the revision petition has got to be allowed. Thus, in my opinion, the court below acted illegally in holding that the application for amendment was misconceived and not maintainable. By taking such an erroneous opinion the court below acted illegally in rejecting the amendment application, thus the revision petition has got to be allowed. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,100a by the petitioner to the respondent and unless the cost is paid by the petitioner to the respondent the amendment will not be incorporated. the copy of the amended petition shall be supplied by the petitioner to the respondent's counsel in the court below. The respondent may file his written statement to all the pleadings as amended within three months from the date of amendment being incorporated. It is further directed that during the pendency of the case the revision petitioner will continuously pay maintenance allowance as has been awarded in favour of the respondent as ordered by this court. --- *** --- .