( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against grant of divorce to the wife who is appellant herein. O. P. 120 of 1988 was instituted by the husband/respondent on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru seeking divorce against the appellant herein on the ground of adultery. It was specifically alleged that the appellant has sexual relations with one Meesala Satyanarayana who was residing nearby her matrimonial house. Meesala Satyanarayana has not been made a party and in fact, it was specifically pleaded by the appellant in her written statement. Even though the said plea was recorded by the lower Court, the lower Court did not concentrate on that aspect at all. In a case for divorce basing on adultery, the adulterer is a necessary party and ought to be made second respondent in the instant case. But, the respondent/husband had failed to implead the alleged adulterer and as such the O. P. is hit by non-joinder of necessary party. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Udai Narain Bajpai v. Smt. Kusum Bajpai, AIR 1975 All 94 wherein the Court held as follows at page 99 :"learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the decision in AIR 1942 All

Click Here to Read the rest of this document