JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-wife has laid this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge impugned orders dated 20.07.2015 (Annex.6) and 07.08.2015 (Annex.8), passed by learned Family Court No.2, Jodhpur, whereby application of the respondent-husband for amendment in the pleadings has been allowed, and the amended petition for annulment of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is taken on record. 2. The facts necessary and germane to the matter are that respondent-husband laid a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the petitioner-wife for dissolution of marriage, precisely, on the ground of cruelty. The petition was filed on 05.10.2012. Subsequently, written statement was filed by the petitioner-wife on 13.09.2013 followed by subsequent pleadings by the respondent-husband on 10.12.2013. On the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, learned Family Court framed issues on 02.01.2015. Subsequent to that, respondent-husband made endeavour for amendment in the pleadings and application under Order 6, Rule 17 is laid to incorporate some other grounds for substantiating the allegation of cruelty. The application seeking amendment is drafted exhaustively and in the pleadings with para 32A and 32B are specifically highlighted for being incorporated in the form of amendment. The prayer made in the application is opposed by the petitioner-wife. 3. Learned Family Court, by its order dated 20.07.2015, allowed the application for amendment without clarifying as to which paragraph respondent-husband can incorporate by way of amendment in the pleadings in his petition for dissolution of marriage. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent-husband has filed amended petition for dissolution of marriage incorporating all the facts which were pleaded in the application for amendment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that amendment in the pleadings is governed by Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and after the amendment of 2002, which has come into effect from 01.07.2002, a party seeking amendment is required to lay appropriate application before commencement of trial, and even otherwise amendment can be sought if the party is in a position to show that despite due diligence, requisite application could not be filed before commencement of trial. The petition under Section 13 filed by the respondent-husband is essentially founded on the ground of cruelty and the same was laid as back as on 05.10.2012 and by December, 2013 the pleadings were completed and that necessitated framing of issues in January, 2015. Therefore, in that background, the application for amendment laid by the respondent-husband was obviously belated. However, taking into account the fact that in matrimonial proceedings when a petition is laid on the ground of cruelty and the party seeking relief from the Court has made endeavour to amend the pleadings, in the interest of justice, some latitude can be granted, and if the Family Court has exercised its discretion in favour of respondent-husband, the same is not liable to be made subject-matter of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India except for plausible grounds. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate Court and the same is required to be exercised judiciously. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Court below while exercising its discretion has not clarified as to which part of amendment prayed for in the application has been permitted. As a matter of fact, the respondent-husband wanted to incorporate two grounds, i.e., para 32A and 32B, and therefore, learned Family Court ought to have allowed amendment only to the extent of permitting the respondent-husband to incorporate particular facts in pleadings and not to allow him to narrate the entire checkered history of the case, which is incorporated in the application for amendment. On the face of it proposed amendment as projected in para 32B is not tenable. In this para the respondent has simply referred to averments contained in the written statement. Therefore amendment to that extent cannot be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Court below is accordingly modified and the respondent-husband is permitted to file amended petition for dissolution of marriage by incorporating para 32A, which starts from page 76 and ends at first paragraph of page 77 of this petition.It is needless to observe that for proving mental cruelty, the respondent-husband is always free to tender requisite evidence.Petition partly allowed. *******