Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that an alleged adulterer is not a necessary or proper party to a divorce case based on cruelty, and the adjudication of the case can proceed without impleading the alleged paramour.

The decision, delivered by a Single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, came in response to a petition challenging a family court’s rejection of an application to add the alleged adulterer as a party to the proceedings. The court noted : “it is not a case on which the decree of divorce is being sought on the ground of adultery, but it is a case in which decree of divorce has been sought on the ground of cruelty as wife made false allegation of adultery against the husband,” rejecting the wife’s plea.

The case originated from a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955. The husband sought the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that his wife had made false accusations of an illicit relationship between him and another woman. According to the husband, these false allegations had defamed both him and his family, causing mental cruelty.

In response, the petitioner-wife sought to implead the woman she accused of having an affair with her husband. She filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the alleged adulterer’s presence was essential for the proper adjudication of the matter. The family court in Bhopal rejected this application, holding that the alleged paramour was neither a necessary nor formal party to the case, prompting the wife to move the High Court.

The court upheld the decision of the family court, agreeing that the presence of the alleged adulterer was not required to adjudicate the claim of cruelty. The court observed that the husband was not seeking a divorce on the grounds of adultery but on the basis of the mental anguish caused by the wife’s unfounded accusations. Therefore, the question of adultery was not the primary issue, and impleading the alleged adulterer would not contribute to the resolution of the case.

The court further noted that the wife bore the responsibility of proving her accusations of adultery, but “if wife fails to prove her allegations, the decree of divorce can be granted by the Court in favour of the husband considering the fact whether the allegation of adultery made without any foundation against the husband comes within the definition of cruelty or not. But adulterer is not required to be impleaded as a party on the request made by the wife,” stated the court.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court ruled that “the Family Court rejecting the application of wife to implead adulterer as a party does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which warrants any interference from this Court.”

As a result, the court dismissed the petition finding no merit in it.

 

Cause Title: X v Y

Appearance:

Shri R.K. Sanghi – Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Manoj Sharma – Senior Advocate with Ms. Aqsa Mokarram – Advocate for the respondent.