RAJIV SHANKAR Vs. SOUMYA NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 06.11.2013 passed in MC.No.1305/2013 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. MC.No.1305/2013 was filed by the petitioner, contending that he married respondent No.1, on 15.03.2012 and sometime during May-June 2012, he unearthed the gory details about the adulterous relationship of respondent No.1, had with respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1, who was about 16 weeks pregnant, deserted him and left along with respondent No.2, on the night of 05.08.2012, in pursuit of her adulterous relationship and later informed, that she is no longer interested in the marriage. Petitioner filed PCR No.21/2013, in the Court of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, under Sections 497 and 498 of IPC, against respondent No.2 and subsequently filed MC.No.1305/2013, to pass a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty and adultery. Trial Judge having questioned the petitioner, whether the adulterer is required to be made a party in the divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'Act'), as the Act does not contemplate making an adulterer one of the respondents, despite bringing to the notice of the Trial Judge, judgment passed in Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Radha Arun and Another, 2004 ILR(Kar) 808, by arriving at the opinion, that impleading of the adulterer as respondent No.2 is not at all necessary and even if the adulterer is brought home by cogent evidence, the Court would not be passing any order against respondent No.2, though may be a proper party and cannot be treated as a necessary party, the trial Judge directed the deletion of respondent No.2 from the array of parties. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was preferred.

(2.) Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik, learned advocate, contended that M.C.No.1305/2013 having been filed to pass a decree of divorce, on the ground of adulterous relationship of respondent No.1 with respondent No.2, apart from other grounds, in the petition the adulterer was arrayed as respondent No.2, to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy in question. He contended that the trial Judge has completely misread and misunderstood the principle of law laid down in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal . He submitted that the Trial Judge, in the impugned order has introduced something of her own, which is not at all appearing in the said Division Bench judgment. He further submitted that the case having been adjourned from 22.04.2013, on the pretext of passing the order, which was ultimately passed on 06.11.2013, after a gap of nearly seven months, shows that this Court should take note of the fact stated against the conduct of the trial Judge, in ground (g) of the writ petition i.e., in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and deal with the officer, appropriately.

(3.) Sri R.A. Devanand and Smt. Neetha, learned advocates, on the other hand submitted that no relief having been sought against respondent No.2, he being not a necessary party in the petition filed to grant decree of divorce, necessary parties being only the parties to the marriage, the Court below is justified in directing deletion of respondent No.2. Learned advocates submitted that in the circumstances of the case, no interference with the impugned order is called for.