The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances. stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OP No. 67 of 2023 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court-Cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P V L BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VTNOD K I]MAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2864 ol' ..t024 OITDER: The prescnt Civil l{evision Petition is pref-err:rl against the ordel dated 29.08.2024 in I.A. No. 45 of 2024 in F.t-- O.P. l'Jo. 67 of 2023 passcd by the Farnily Court-cum- III Additr<'nal Sessiot.ts Judge at Nalgonda

2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in thc rnain petrtlon

3. The petitioner herein hled the subject petition as petitioner for dissolution olmarriage videF.C.O.P. No.67 of 2023 (t)ld No.l288 ol 20 l9) under Section l3(1Xi) and (ia) of Hindu llarriaqe Act, 1955

4. The petitioner herein had hled the underlying interlo'outory apptication vide I.A. No. 45 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No 67 o1'2023 under Order I Rule l0 r/w section l5l of Civil procedrre Code (for short'CPC') seeking permission to implead propos(c respondent No.2 as respondent in the above petition. The said rpplication is 2 filed on the ground that he is necessary and proper party to the main petition for effective adjudication of matter.

5. The trial Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application hotding that the proposed respondent need not be impleaded in above suit. The trial courl observed that the allegation of the petitioner with regard to one Survi Venkatesh Goud is without any oral or documentary evidence. Accordingly, thc trial Court held the proposed respondent could not be impleaded as respondent in the petition, as his addition was not necessary lor the effective adjudication of the matter.

6. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 29.08.2024 the petitioncr herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Heard Shri P.V. Bhanu Prakash leamed counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

8. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 CPC by not impieading the proposed respondent in the above petition, despite he being necessary party to the petition; that ill srder to prove the illicit relationship which the petitioner :trl ,7 3 herein has also pleaded and sought divorce; that ltrrther the trial Court did not consider the cross examination of PW-l] i.e. larher of the respondent in M.C. No.06 ol 2020, photographr;. printouts of WhatsApp messages and call records exchanged retu'een the respondcnt herein and proposed respondent; thus, t re ploposcd respondent is essential for the eff'ective adjudication r'1 the pctition; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled lc g nl principles regarding impleadrrrcnt.

9. The pctitkrners furlher contend that if the propos:rl respondent is not impleaded as respondent, it would be difficutl to prove the illicit relationship being alleged by him against lc spondent to obtain the decree o1'divorce.

10. Per contrl), the respondent herein contercjs that the impleadrnent petition is liable to be dismissed on the glor.rnd of absence of rnerit, as the petitioner herein allegedly madc lalse allegations; that his impleadment is not essential br ef[ective adjudication. Thus, the application filed tack of bona.fides and is liablc to be disrnissed. lI. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions ur11cd. }. *& , -.:. a \ 4

12.The petition vide F.C.O.p No. 67 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage claiming decree of divorce. The petitioner in the underlying application is seeking to implead the proposed respondent on the basis of photographs, Copy of FIR No.75l2019 dated 30.07.2019, receipt showing the purchase of jewellry lrom one Sri Tirumala Jewellers. Basing on the said documents, though the petitioner sought to establish the tact that the proposed respondent is a neccssary party, it is to be noted that in a petition filed under Order I Rule l0 CpC in order to irnplead a party as respondent, one needs to show that without the proposed respondent having impleaded as a parfy respondent an el'fective decree cannot be passed.

13., Though the petitioner contends that in order to prove the adultery of respondent herein the impleadment of proposed respondent is necessary and proper party, it is to be noted that, since, the issue concerning adultery is to be adjudicated based on the evidence that maybe adduced against the respondent wherever, a decree of divorce can be passed. This Court is of the view that the proposed respondent is not a necessary party. Thus, the proof of ,, -F*- +'4 .' 5 adultery need not be conflated with who should be I rrayed as a party to a divorce action (See: Shivi Bansal vs- Gaurat' Bansalt).

14. It is settlcd law that, Crucial test for irnpleadir g any party, whether as ptaintiff or defendant. is whether presencc- c l'strch party is necessary ol proper without whorn there can be no r:1l'ect or final adjudication ol all the issues involved in the suit with r:gard to the same sub.ject nratter. l5.It is pertinent to note that the petitioner filed the alrove F.(-'.O.P No. 67 o1'2023 seeking divorce action which is center,-r( around the petitioner and respondent herein who have entered int I rnatrirnony. Thus, there is no requirement to array the proposed resfondent who is alleged to havc an adulterous lelationship as a part)' n a divorce petition (See: llunjul Joshi vs. Bhavna Khurana2)

16. As regards, the mere filing of an intcrlocuto{, applir:ation seeking to implead the respondent in a petition prima;'i ),instituted for dissolution of marriage seeking decree of divr rce, ',rrhich fundamentally challenges the matrimonial relationship , rf petitioner ' Iraauulof r4+1plz oz,t 'z 2024 SCC Ont,inc Del -5 120 I .*:.':. J 'r \ 5 and respondent, cannot be sustained without establishing such a legal basis. lT.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvl. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and l{otels Pvt. Lttl. and Orsr has held as under:

12. ....rhe scope and amhit of Order I of Rule l0(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding partie.s. The .suid sub-rule is not aboltt the right of o non-party, to be implettded as a parly, bul aboul the .iudiciul discretion ol lhc courl lo strike oul or add parties at any slage oJ u proceeding. The discretion under lhe sub-rule can be exercised either suo moto or on the applrcation of the plaintilJ or the deJintlunl, or on an applicutktn ofo person who is nol a party to the suil.'lhe court urn strik otrl any parly v,ho is improperly joined. The court can odd anyone os a plainti/J or as o defendant if it finds that he is a necessory party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any condiltons or subject to .such terms as the courl deems fit lo impose. In exercising its .judicial discretion under Order I Rule l0(2) of the Code, the courl will of course acl uccording lo reason and fctir play arul not uccording b whirns and caprice. This Court in Ramii Dayav,ula & Sons (P) I-td. v. lnvest Imporr MANU/SC/0502/1980 . 1981 (l) SCC 80 reiterated the classic definition of'discretion' hS, Lord Mansfiald tn R. v. Il'ilkes 1770 (98) ER 327 thar 'discretion' v'hen applied lo courts o.[ justice, means sound discretion guided by luu,. Il ntusl be govcrned b), rule. not by humour; il musl not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, 'but legal and regular'. Ile may nou, give some illustratktns regarding exercise of discretion undcr the soid Sub-Rule. I 2. l1 *+* ** t2.2) t MeNu/sc/o,tzzlzo to \ 7 123) ff 0 Derson makes an aDplication for beinc i rVleaded contendinq tlrut he is a necessarv Do rr.,. and if the courl li tL's thal hc ts d necessary pdt rv. il can implead him. If the olaintiff opn ses such lht'n insteud o/ impleadine such a Dartv, ttho i' .fut,t4to tn1 Dleadment bc o necessur) purty. lhe court m 'l .' suit 11' rlv and in I i' ubsent:e holdj,tE lkat tht applicanl v'os a necc \sary Du the lainti , ) ,r +++*+ v'os nol entilled lo anv relicf in the suit

2. Further, it is to be noted that though the petition )r allege the proposed respondent as adulterer for him to be irnp l''aded in the abovc divorcc petition, the initial burden is upon tl e petitioner herein to pro\ e the adultery before the trial Court an(l only if it is discharged thc burden shifts on the respondent herein. ilowever, in the present case the petitioner failed to discharge th,' burden of prool- cast on him for the onus to shift onto the respt rdents (See.' K. Sharada Bai vs. Shsmshunnisaa).

18. Thus, the proposed respondent cannot be irnp,l :aded under Order I Rule l0 CPC in the above petition for tli rsolution of marriage seeking decree of divorce, considering th: causes of action involved. Thus, the proposed respondent does r rt qualifo as necessary pafty tbr the eflective adjudication of thc i ase and his impleadment as respondent to the petition is unwanantr d. o (zoos): scc as I

19. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly held that the proposed respondent is not substantial or necessary party to be impleaded in the present petition. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise ol its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20, For the above-mentioned reasons. this Courl is of the view that the order of the trial Court does not sulfer from any infinnity or erTor

21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The order dated 29.08.2024 in I.A. No.45 of 2024 in F .C.O.P. No. 67 of 2023 is sustained. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. ,:"''^Stt$t$ / ,,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER To, I 2 J lx?ts'.:'s,?p:ly Two CD CoPles ?:#[:I E ;]L]1i''f&1 j#i3Fi' J ud ge' N arso nd a NVB/gh YY _iF-,:.=-"-lry- E?_l HIGH COURT ( DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRP.No.2864 ot 2024 I , l: i i i ., _ \i- :r. . 17 crI iifi .tat :/' DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PET -ION 5*{,.L ft'.w