JEEDIGUNTA ANANDA LAKSHMI Vs. JEEDIGUNTA BHASKARA NARASIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third party who wants to come on record in O. P. No. 135 of 1968 on the file of the District Court, Eluru, is the petitioner. The O. P, is filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by a husband against his wife, respondents 1 and 2 herein, Originally, a decree for divorce was passed ex parte on 11-3-1969. After more than one year, that is, the time to be elapsed from the date of decree for divorce before either party to the dissolved marriage can validity marry again, on 11-4-1970, the petitioner was married by the: 1st respondent. Subsequently, on an application filed by the 2nd respondent, to which the present petitioner was not made a party, the ex parte decree of divorce was set aside, ultimately, by this Court. It is after the ex parte divorce decree was set aside and O. P. was restored to file for disposal afresh, the petitioner has come forward with the application in question under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to come on record, alleging that she married the 1st respondent on 11-4-1970 in Madras and ever since she has been living with him as his legally wedded wife. The 1st respondent married her stating that he had obtained divorce from the 2nd respondent in O. P. No. 135/68. She learnt now that at the instance of the 2nd respondent, O. P. No. 135 of 1968 is revived and is pending trial. She is vitally interested in the matter as the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. It is, therefore, necessary in the interests of justice that she may be added as 2nd respondent in the O. P. as otherwise, she will suffer serious and irreparable loss.

(2.) The lower Court dismissed the application by passing a very short order as hereunder:

(3.) It is provided under Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, that subject to the other provisions contained in the Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in that behalf, all proceedings under the Act should be regulated, as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Therefore, Order 1, Rule 10 (2) which provides for addition of parties, is applicable to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. In support of his submission that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the divorce proceedings between respondents 1 and 2 Shri V. Venkatramaiah learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, has placed reliance on the decision in Ramsay v. Boyte, (1903) ILR 30 Cal 489, which had arisen under the Indian Divorce Act. It was held therein that in a wifes suit for divorce against the husband on the ground of adultery, the Court has no power under the Indian Divorce Act to allow, the alleged adultress to intervene. The relevant section in the Indian Divorce Act is Section 45, which is in the following, terms: