Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lt Col. Rajiv Shankar, filed a divorce petition (MC No.1305/2013) before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that his wife, respondent No.1 Soumya Nair, had an adulterous relationship with respondent No.2 Roshan Jacob. The petitioner claimed that he married respondent No.1 on 15.03.2012 and discovered the adulterous relationship in May-June 2012. He sought to implead respondent No.2 as a party to the divorce proceedings. The Family Court, by order dated 06.11.2013, rejected the impleadment application, holding that respondent No.2 was not a necessary party. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court considered the issue of whether the alleged paramour is a necessary party in a divorce petition on the ground of adultery. The court noted that the petitioner's case was that respondent No.1 had an adulterous relationship with respondent No.2, and that respondent No.1 was about 16 weeks pregnant at the time of desertion. The court held that for effective adjudication of the allegation of adultery, the presence of the alleged paramour is necessary to enable the court to adjudicate the issue completely and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to permit the petitioner to implead respondent No.2 as a party in MC No.1305/2013. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Divorce - Adultery - Necessary Party - Section 13(1)(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The court considered whether the alleged paramour is a necessary party in a divorce petition on the ground of adultery. The petitioner husband sought to implead the alleged paramour as a respondent. The Family Court rejected the application. The High Court held that for effective adjudication of the allegation of adultery, the alleged paramour is a necessary party, as his presence would enable the court to adjudicate the issue completely and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned order was set aside and the Family Court was directed to permit impleadment. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alleged paramour (respondent No.2) is a necessary party to a divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of adultery.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in MC No.1305/2013 is set aside. The Family Court is directed to permit the petitioner to implead respondent No.2 as a party in MC No.1305/2013.
Law Points
- Necessary party
- impleadment
- adultery
- divorce
- Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Section 13(1)(i)
- Family Courts Act
- 1984
- Section 10
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Order 1 Rule 10
- writ petition
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
