B. RAJENDRA Vs. SREE KUMARI S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner is the husband who filed O.P. (HMA) 264 of 1986 against his wife (respondent) on the ground of desertion, cruelty and adultery. Husband filed I.A. 2819 of 1990 to .dispense with the joinder of adulterers as co -respondents. The petition was filed under Rule 11 of the Hindu Marriage (Kerala) Rules 1963. The application was dismissed by the Sub Judge holding that the petition is without any bonafides.

(2.) IN paragraph 9 of the petition it is stated that the respondent is leading an immoral life and she is having voluntary sexual intercourse with other persons. It is further stated that the petitioner had no occasion for any physical contact with the respondent after she deserted him and later on he came to know that she was admitted in the Cosmopolitan Hospital in September, 1985 and that she underwent an operation for aborting illegal pregnancy. In the interlocutory application it is stated that the petitioner made due and deligent enquiries to find out the name and address of the adulterers and despite his best efforts he could not get any information. Counsel for the recision petitioner submitted that the above allegations would amply justify the relief sought in the petition and the Court below erred in dismissing it.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent submitted that the petitioner does not have a case that the respondent is leading the life of a prostitute and so Rule 11(d)(iii) has no application. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the averments in paragraph 7 of the O.P. clearly spell out that the respondent is leading a licentious life and merely because the word 'prostitute' is not specifically mentioned in the petition it cannot be said that Rule ll(d)(iii) does not apply. The averments in paragraph 9 of the O.P. pointedly refer to the immoral life of the respondent and it is asserted that she is having sexual intercourse with other persons. In paragraph 7 of the interlocutory application petitioner has stated that he made due and deligent enquiries to trace the adulterers and it proved futile. In paragraph 4 of the application it is specifically stated that he could not gather information about the names and addresses of the persons with whom the respondent had voluntary sexual intercourse and so he could not implead them in the array of the respondents.