N.K. AGARWAL, J.

1. The instant petition is directed against the part of the order dated 19-12-2006 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M. No. 16-A/2006 whereby and whereunder application under Order 1 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the respondents herein jointly filed petition u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (briefly 'the Act') against the petitioner herein for claiming a relief of declaration to the effect that the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 is a nullity.

3. The petitioner preferred an application (Annexure P-2) under Order 1 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC submitting that as far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, she has no right to prefer an application u/s 11 of the Act and, therefore, the application filed by the respondents suffers from mis-joinder of parties. The respondents herein filed a joint reply (Annexure P-4) and opposed the application on the ground stated in their reply.

4. Learned Trial Court upon hearing the parties held that the respondent No. 1 herein is not an unnecessary party and dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner. Hence this petition.

5. Shri Uttam Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of Section 11 of the Act would reveal that a petition under this Section can only be filed by either party to the marriage against each other for a relief of declaration that the marriage solemnized between them being void is invalid, whereas the instant petition filed by the respondent No. 1 would be of the nature that she being the first legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2, so the marriage solemnized between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner be declared void by passing a decree in this regard and, therefore, the petition at least filed by the respondent No. 1 is not maintainable in accordance with the provision of Section 11 of the Act and, therefore, the petition suffers from mis-joinder of party and the name of respondent No. 1 be deleted from the cause title of the petition filed by the respondents jointly. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Ajay Chandrakar and Others Vs. Smt. Ushabai, (2000) 2 MPLJ 112, Harmohan Senapati Vs. Smt. Kamala Kumari Senapati and Another, AIR 1979 Ori 51, Kedar Nath Gupta Vs. Sm. Suprava, AIR 1963 Patna 311 and Amarlal Goru and Another Vs. Vijayabai Singroda, AIR 1959 MP 400.

6. Shri J.R. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that as far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned, the petition has been validly filed and, therefore, even if the Court comes to a conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is not necessary party or proper party in the petition filed u/s 11 of the Act, it will not affect the petition, which has also been filed by the respondent No. 2.

7. Per contra, Smt. Kiranmayee Nayak, respondent No. 1 appearing in person, submitted that she being the first legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2, is entitled to institute action along with her husband against the petitioner, whose marriage with respondent No. 2 is on the face of record void and deserves to be declared as such. Section 11 of the Act has to be read along with Section 5(i) of the Act while interpreting the words 'either party thereto' in Section 11. Therefore, she being necessary/proper party, the order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be upheld as there is no jurisdictional irregularity or illegality committed by the Trial Court. Reliance has been placed by respondent No. 1 on the judgments in the case of Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Dharam Das and Others, AIR 1984 All 147, Banshidhar Jha Vs. Chhabi Chatterjee, (1967) CriLJ 1176, Naurang Singh Chuni Singh Vs. Smt. Sapla Devi, AIR 1968 All 412, Rajeshbai and Others Vs. Shantabai, AIR 1982 Bom 231, and Savitaben Somabhai Bhat