( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali, in O. P. No. 8/78 dismissing the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage.

( 2 ) THE husband is the appellant. The petition is filed u/s. 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by Act 68 of 1976. The case of the appellant is that the respondent-wife was leading an unchaste life and she has illicit connection with one Nageswara Rao. The respondent denied the allegation of unchastity. She alleged that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with his brother s wife and with a view to avoid her, she was sent away to her parents house.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge found that the allegation of unchastity on the part of the wife is true and that she was having illicit intimacy with Nageswara Rao. However, he dismissed the application on the ground that the adulterer was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings as required under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 4 ) IN this appeal it is contended by Sri Vedantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant that R. 8 has become obsolete after the amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976.

( 5 ) P