JUDGMENT B. M. Shyam Prasad, J. - The petitioner, party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondent are heard, and the impugned order dated 17.1.2020 in M.C.No.4990/2015 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (for short, Family Court ) is perused. 2. The Family Court by the impugned order dated 17.1.2020 has rejected the petitioner s application [I.A. NO.9] under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC). The petitioner by this application seeks to include a prayer for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, HM Act ) and also include certain assertions in support of such prayer. The Family Court has rejected the application [I.A. NO.9] on the ground that amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC cannot be typically allowed after commencement of trial unless it is shown to the Court s satisfaction that the party seeking amendment of the pleadings could not place such contentions on record earlier despite due diligence, and in the present case, the petitioner has not made out any ground to justify the amendment after commencement of the trial. The Family Court in the course of the impugned order has also referred to the direction of this Court on 19.7.2019 in an earlier round of litigation inter se parties before this Court in W.P.No.23348/2019. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition in M.C.No.4990/2015 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HM Act and she is receiving undisputedly an interim maintenance of `50,000/- per month for herself and her children. The petitioner, who was earlier represented by a learned Counsel, is now conducting the case on her own. Though the petitioner has not detailed any specific term or reason to justify the belated application for amendment of the pleadings to include relief under Section 25 of the HM Act, she has referred to the settled principle that Courts must lean in favour of deciding the rights of parties on merit instead of punishing them for any mistake in the conduct of the case. 4. 4. The petitioner, who appears in person, in continuation of the aforesaid assertion in the affidavit filed in support of the application, submits that she is a home maker and she is not able to maintain herself and her children who depend on her unless she receives maintenance from the respondent, and she could not earlier seek the relief of permanent alimony or make application to amend the pleading to include the prayer for permanent alimony as she was acting under the advice of her counsel. The petitioner also canvasses that the application for amendment be allowed setting aside the Family Court s order in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has no due regard for the directions of this Court and the petitioner is in the habit of making the applications to protract the proceedings. The respondent is not only paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance but has also provided residential accommodation to the respondent which yields monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- to her. The respondent, who has made all these arrangements for the petitioner/children, is residing in a rented premise. The protraction of the proceedings would only prejudice the respondent. The petitioner despite all these arrangements is seeking inclusion of a prayer for an astronomical sum as permanent alimony, and the application being belated and bereft of circumstances justifying the belated application, the Family Court has rightly rejected the application. 6. The right of a spouse to receive permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HM Act is not only available at the time of passing of a decree but any time subsequent thereto on an application. The request for amendment to include a prayer for permanent alimony and the pleadings in support thereof will have to be considered in the light of this statutory right. Further, in the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner has commenced her evidence and examination-inchief is yet to be completed, and as such, the evidence from the petitioner s side is not completed. Though the petitioner has not articulated the circumstances as generally been done to explain the circumstances justifying the proposed amendment, in referring the established principles, has justified the belated application citing lack of awareness. 7. Though the petitioner has not articulated the circumstances as generally been done to explain the circumstances justifying the proposed amendment, in referring the established principles, has justified the belated application citing lack of awareness. 7. In the light of these circumstances, and the settled law that the Court s must lean in favour of the amendment for complete adjudication unless request for amendment is vitiated by mala fides or time barred, this Court is of the considered view that the Family Court has rejected the application in an irregular exercise of its jurisdiction under Order VI of CPC. Therefore, the writ petition requires to be allowed permitting the petitioner to amend the petition in terms of the application with liberty to the respondent to file additional Written Statement. 8. Insofar as the delay and the consequential difficulties to the respondent, this Court would again reiterate the directions of this Court in W.P.No.23348/2019 which reads as under: 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, instead of adjudicating the validity of the order dated 20.03.2019 and in view of the provisions contained in the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules, 2005, the family Court is directed to conclude the proceeding within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that the parties shall co- operate with the Family Court for early decision of the suit and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment. This Court while reiterating the above direction would also observe that if there is an unjustified protraction by the petitioner in conducting the proceedings, and there are financial difficulties for the respondent because of unjustified protraction, it would always be open to the respondent to seek modification of the order granting interim maintenance. The writ Petition is allowed quashing the Family Court s order dated 17.10.2020 in M.C.No.4990/2015 and allowing the petitioner s application [I.A. NO. 9] under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC permitting the petitioner to carry out amendment. The petitioner shall carry out the amendment within 15 days from the date of first appearance before the Family Court.