R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant and first respondent are respectively the husband and wife. The appellant filed M. C. No. 521/2000 before the Family Court, Bangalore under S. 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying that a decree for divorce against the first respondent with costs and such other reliefs the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. He impleaded the alleged adulterer (second respondent herein) as second respondent in M. C. No. 521/2000.

( 2 ) SECOND respondent filed I. A. No. IV under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of CPC to delete him from the petition. Second respondent contended that no relief has been sought against him. He also contended that the Hindu Marriage (Karnataka) Rules, 1956 do not contemplate or require that the alleged adulterer should be impleaded as a respondent in a proceeding under S. 13 (1) (i) of H. M. Act. Therefore he submitted that he is neither a proper party nor a necessary party.

( 3 ) APPELLANT resisted the said application on the ground that the petition being one under S. 13 (1) (i) for divorce, the adulterer is a necessary and proper party to the petition. The Family Court, by order dated 4-4-2001 allowed I. A. IV

Click Here to Read the rest of this document