ORDER : 1. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur whereby, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 2. Shri Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that prior to framing of issues, the amendment application has been filed to incorporate certain subsequent developments and the Court below, without examining whether said amendment is necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved, dismissed the same in a mechanical manner, whereas the matter relates to the matrimonial disputes. He placed his reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256 , wherein following conclusion has been made:- (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed. (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.” He therefore submits that the Petition may be allowed and the other side may be permitted to file consequential amendments in their written statements, if they so desire. 3. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent does not contest the submission made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. 3. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent does not contest the submission made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions made and the guiding principles rendered in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another (supra), also further considering that issues have not yet been framed and prior to it, such application has been filed and normally the Court allows such amendment which is necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, the order impugned is quashed and the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed and the concerned Family Court is directed to permit the Petitioner to carryout necessary amendment in the Plaint and also grant appropriate liberty to the other side for filing consequential amendments in their written statements. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for necessary compliance.