'Adulterer' Should Be Given Opportunity To Disprove Adultery Claim: Telangana HC Directs Impleading Of 'Adulterer' In Divorce Case

The Court held thus while noting that making the adulterer a party to the proceedings would help the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy.

The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order of the Additional Family Court that dismissed the application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead alleged lover of wife in the Original Petition as respondent.

The bench of Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed, “…since the finding of adultery would adversely affect the interest of adulterer, opportunity should be given to him to defend himself and to disprove the claim of adultery, the said adulterer should be arrayed in the proceedings which would help the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy.”

Brief Facts-

The petitioner-husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery by the respondent-wife. He sought to add Z as a co-respondent, alleging that Z confessed to being in a relationship with the Petitioner’s wife and had asked the Petitioner to break their engagement. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent admitted to this relationship, which continued even after their marriage. The Respondent denied all allegations, accusing the petitioner of emotional harassment and blackmail. She argued that the petitioner fabricated these stories to defame her and avoid the marriage, and she requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

The Court mentioned the decision in Radhika @ M. Lavanya Vs. M.Lokender where according to the Court it was held that where the husband alleges adultery on the part of the wife in seeking divorce, it is mandatory as per Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act to join the adulterer as party to the petition. The Court said that the object of statutory Rule not only proceeds on public policy to prevent collusion and character assassination but also to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon controversy between parties.

The Court noted that the wife of the said Z filed OP against him seeking divorce on the ground of adultery with the respondent herein and the said case was decreed.

The Court further noted that Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a joinder of the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent in a case filed seeking divorce on the ground of adultery is mandatory.

The bench said that the alleged adulterer is a necessary and proper party to the Original Petition and in fact, the O.P. would be hit by his non-joinder.

According to the Court, the trial Court committed irregularity and illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order.

Finally, the Court allowed the Petition.