Respondents 1 and 2, the wife and son of the 3rd respondent, were proper parties to the suit because they had an interest in denying the marriage of the petitioner and her status, and because their presence before the Court was necessary for an effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit.

( 1 ) THIS is an application to revise an order made by the Second additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which he allowed a petition presented on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, under Order 1, rule 10, Code of Civil procedure, that they might be added as defendants in a suit, O. S. No. 43/1 of 1957. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 43/1 of 1957. The 1st respondent is Sahebzadi Anwar Begum. The 2nd respondent is Prince Shahmat Ali Khan, minor, represented by his mother, the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent, walashan Nawab Mozamjah Bahadur, the second son of H. E. H. the Nizam, is the defendant in the said suit.

( 2 ) ON the 12th April, 1957, the suit was filed for the following main reliefs :- (1) That the plaintiff be declared to be legally wedded wife (Mankuha) of the defendant ; (2) That a decree be passed in her favour against the defendant declaring her to be entitled to receive from him Rs. 2,000 per month as Kharch-e-Pandan (pin money ). The petitioner sought the first of the above reliefs, on the allegation that she was married to the defendant at a ceremony solemnised in accordance with the shia Law, by a Shia Mujtahid on the 19th October, 1948; and that after the marriage, she gave birth to three daughters who are now aged 8, 7 and 5 years respectively. She averred :"the fact of this marriage is known to all those who know the abovenamed defendant, but the said defendant, for reasons best known to himself, has tried and is still trying to suppress the facts of this marriage (Nikah) with the plaintiff in such a way that the members of his family should conclude that the plaintiff is not his Nikah wife. He refuses to openly acknowledge the plaintiff as his legally wedded wife. This conduct of the defendant has cast a cloud upon the legal rights and status of the plaintiff as the legally wedded wife of the defendant ".

( 3 ) THE second of the reliefs sought by her is grounded on an alleged pre-nuptial agreement whereunder, the 3rd respondent agreed to pay her a sum of Rs. 2,ooo per month as Kharch-e-Pandan, which amount he has defaulted in paying since January, 1953. On the same date, that is, 12th April, 1957, she filed an application for examination on commission of Syed Barkat Ali, the Mujtahid who is said to have officiated at the marriage ceremony. Notice of this application was given to the 3rd respondent by Court on the 15th April, 1957.

( 4 ) ON the 22nd April, 1957, the 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the truth and correctness of the allegation made in the plaint regarding the petitioner s marriage with him on the 19th October, 1948. He also admitted the plaint allegation that the petitioner had three daughters born to her by him. In paragraph 3 of his written statement he stated :"the defendant admits that sometime after his Nikah with the plaintiff, he was placed in circumstances, which compelled him to act in a manner, which may have created an impression that the defendant was intentionally trying to suppress the fact of the Nikah ". With regard to the second of the reliefs claimed in the suit, the 3rd respondent, while not disputing the pre-nuptial agreement set up by the petitioner, justified the Stoppage of the payment on the ground of her expensive habits and extravagant living.

( 5 ) ON the 22nd April, 1957, the date on which the 3rd respondent filed his written statement, respondents 1 and 2 presented a petition under Order 1, rule 10, Civil procedure Code, that they might be added as defendants in the suit. The grounds on which they have sought to be impleaded are, that the first of them is the legally married wife of the 3rd respondent and the second of them is his son ; that they are interested in denying the marriage of the petitioner and her status and that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are fighting a collusive action with an ulterior purpose, the result of which would seriously affect their rights.

( 6 ) THE petition was resisted by the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document