1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter arises from a Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984; hereinafter referred to as FC Act.

2. Petitioner applied for divorce under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; for short HM Act, on the ground that the Respondent/wife has committed adultery; she having illicit relations with Tarun, whose address is mentioned in paragraph 8.4 of this writ petition. Pending that application, the Respondent/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the HM Act seeking an order for payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. That application was allowed by the Family Court as per the impugned order directing payment of the amounts fixed therein. The Court below also directed that the aforementioned Tarun be impleaded as a respondent in the proceedings. This is under challenge.

3. The order for payment of maintenance pendente lite and for payment towards litigation expenses, including food and travelling expenditure, has been issued by the Court below on due and fair application of mind to the facts and circumstances of case. The amounts so awarded cannot be treated as exorbitant; or as not allowable under law. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order, to that extent, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. The question that remains for consideration is as to whether the Court below acted without jurisdiction or illegally, in directing impleadment of the person-Tarun as co-respondent in the application for divorce filed by the writ petitioner alleging that his wife has committed adultery with the said person.

5. The plea of the petitioner before the Court below is that Tarun is the person with whom the respondent has committed adultery. This plea of the writ petitioner is reiterated in this writ petition as well, as noted above.

6. Sections 14 and 21 of the HM Act include conferment of rule making power on the High Court. The Chhattisgarh High Court has framed rules to regulate the proceedings under the HM Act. That bunch of rules under the HM Act are included as Rule 366 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. Clause (vii)(e)(ii) in sub-rule (2), among those rules provide, inter-alia, that if the petition is for divorce on the ground of adultery, the name and address of all persons with whom such acts were committed have to be stated in the petition. Thus, the applicable statutory rules themselves provide for impleadment of the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent in proceedings for divorce under the HM Act in any proceeding in any Court in the State of Chhattisgarh.

7. If one were to look at the provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869; Section 11 of that Act specifically provides that the adulterer or adulteress shall be made a co-respondent unless the petitioner is excused by the Court from doing so in situations which are mentioned in that Section. However, the HM Act does not make it obligatory to implead the alleged adulterer on the ground of adultery.

8. What would be the situation where the rules do not require impleading of the alleged adulterer as co-respondent?

9. The Court below, being a Family Court, is governed by, among other things, Section 10 of the FC Act. That Section has three sub-sections. Sub-section (2) applies to proceedings under Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure before a Family Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 applies to all suits and proceedings before a Family Court, other than the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and of any other law for the time being in force, shall apply to suits and proceedings before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Family Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have all the powers of such Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the FC Act, provides