SANJAY DAVID SINGH Vs. REENA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal from order arises out of an order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Assistant Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City, directing the Plaintiff to implead one Ms. Nisha Das as a party to the proceedings pending before it.

(2.) The Appellant, a Christian married man, had filed a Suit under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City, which was numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 969 of 2003 Sanjay David Singh v. Smt. Reena Singh. Through this Suit, the Appellant had sought restitution of conjugal rights alleging that his wife Smt. Reena Singh was avoiding to live with him in the matrimonial home. Written statements were filed and a counterclaim has been lodged by the wife Smt. Reena Singh. It has been alleged in the counter-claim that the Appellant Sanjay David Singh had married with one Ms. Nisha Das and he is living with her. It has further been alleged that one girl child has born in July, 2008 out of this illicit relation. The learned Family Court taking into account versions of both the parties had ordered the Appellant-Plaintiff to implead Ms. Nisha Das as a party to the proceedings. The learned Family Court, in this regard, has also taken into account Section 11 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which is applicable to the Christian couples.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed this order of learned Family Court on various grounds. According to him, such an order cannot be passed by the Family Court directing the Plaintiff-Appellant to implead alleged adulterer or adulteress. It was open for the wife Smt. Reena Singh to have impleaded Ms. Nisha Das as a party. The order impugned is against the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 6(a)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Due to continuance of this order, the Appellant-Plaintiff would immensely suffer and he has raised doubt of contemplated litigations to be brought against the husband-Appellant. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel that the Appellant cannot be forced to impaled a third party Ms. Nisha Das. The impugned order dated 17.8.2009 deserves to be set aside.