M MALLIKA Vs. M RAJU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the interlocutory order passed in HMOP.No. 30 of 2002, impleading the second respondent herein as co-respondent.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed the above OP for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. THE petitioner herein filed her counter denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the first respondent filed this application in I.A.No. 31 of 2003 to implead the second respondent alleging that he is the paramour and that his wife (the petitioner herein) is living with him in adultery. According to the first respondent, the presence of the second respondent was necessary for effective adjudication for the main controversy.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the impleadment of the co-respondent is made mandatory in the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, the legislature thought it fit not to introduce a similar Section in the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, it is not necessary to implead the second respondent. THE learned counsel would also submit that the allegations in the pleadings are vague, the oral evidence is also vague and now this petition has only been filed to harass the petitioner.