1. The petitioner, Smt. Nethravathi M.L. has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 18/07/2016 aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan on 22/06/2016 in Matrimonial Case, M.C.No.17/2013, a Divorce Petition filed by the Respondent Husband, Dr. B.N. Shivaswamy against the present petitioner, Smt. Nethravathi M.L under Section 13 (1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The impugned order dated 22/06/2016 has been passed by the learned Family Court rejecting the I.A.No.10 filed by the present petitioner, Smt. Nethravathi M.L. seeking impleadment of one Smt. Revathi @ Vedavathi and Master Khushadwaj, who according to the petitioner Smt. Nethravathi M.L. were the second wife and her son of the second, but illegal marriage with the Respondent Dr. B.N. Shivaswamy.

3. The Court below rejected the said Application for impleadment of these two persons, viz. Smt. Revathi @ Vedavathi and Master Khushadwaj by the impugned order dated 22/06/2016 giving the following reasons for the same.

“19. As such, order 1 rule 10(2) of code of civil procedure, provides that at any stage of the proceedings, the Court is empowered to implead the parties to the proceedings who are necessary parties or proper parties to the proceedings and whose presence is required for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties to the proceedings.

20. In the light of these provisions, it is noted that the petitioner has not sought any relief against the proposed respondents and more so as per the law, the respondent is not permitted to seek any reliefs against the proposed respondents in the present proceedings before this Court in this case. From that angle of the matter the presence of the proposed respondents are not required before this Court in this case as parties to the proceedings.

21. The maintainability of contention taken by the respondent regarding the alleged second marriage of the petitioner with the proposed respondent No.2 may be considered in the proceedings by this Court on merits, at the time of final disposal of this case. In the opinion of this Court, the presence of the proposed respondents as parties to the proceedings is not necessary and required to adjudicate the case made out by the respective parties.

22. Keeping note of the contention of the respective parties, in the opinion of this Court, no prejudice will be caused to the proposed respondents if they are not arrayed as parties because this Court is not going to decide any alleged rights of alleged second wife and child of the petitioner in this case.

23. Hence, from any angle of the matter the respondent is not entitled for the relief’s sought for in this application.

Accordingly the points are answered in the Negative.”

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Nethravathi M.L., Mr. M. Sivappa along with Mr.K.T. Govinde Gowda have submitted before the Court that the proposed Respondent parties, viz., Smt. Revathi @ Vedavathi and her son, Master Khushadwaj were proper parties to the said Divorce Petition filed by the husband and the learned Court below has erred in not impleading them in the present lis pending between the parties under Section 13 (1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. M. Sivappa relied upon the two Division Bench decisions of this Court, viz. in the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Radha Arun and another, AIR 2003 Kar.508 and a subsequent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.N. Sunil Kumar Vs. Preethi Prasad and others, 2007 (1) KCCR p.594 (DB) and submitted that the impleadment of these two parties, viz. the alleged second wife of the petitioner Dr.B.N. Shivaswamy in the Divorce Petition was essential as it also amounted to adultery on the part of the petitioner, Dr.B.N. Shivaswamy and the Division Bench of this Court in the aforecited judgments has clearly held that where a Divorce Petition is fil