MEENAKSHI Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that calls for consideration is whether in a petition filed for divorce on the ground of adultery under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the alleged adulterer must be impleaded as a co-respondent ?.

(2.) The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the decision reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5078 (Shivi Bansal vs. Gaurav Bansal) held that the alleged adulterer is not a necessary party as a decree can be passed in his or her absence and that the adulterer is not a proper party since the issue concerning adultery can be adjudicated without making the adulterer a party to the cause. This was followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 240. The Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in AIR 2003 Karnataka 508 (Arun kumar Agarwal vs. Radha Arun) took the view that the alleged adulterer is not a necessary party but a proper party. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 328 (Mirapala Venkata Ramana v. Mirapala Peddiraju) declared that the adulterer is a necessary party and failure to implead him will lead to non-suiting the petitioner. The Division Bench of the Andhra High Court followed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Udai Narain Bajpai v. Smt.Kusum Bajpai (AIR 1975 All 94). The recent decision of the Telengana High Court in Phani Raghavalu Meduri vs. Lakshmi Meduri (CRP No.2192 of 2023 dtd. 8/4/2024) is also on the same lines.

(3.) As many as three Single Judge Benches of the Madras High Court have taken the view that the petition would be not maintainable if the alleged adulterer is not impleaded. [(2001) 1 MLJ 318 ( Easwaran Vs. Mani), 2005 (2) CTC 28 (M.Mallika Vs.M.Raju) and C.M.S.A.No.16 of 2013, dtd. 8/2/2021 (Kala Vs. E.N.Ramesh].