The main legal point established is that the impleading of parties in a divorce petition should be based on the grounds pleaded, and necessary parties should be brought in to determine the dispute completely.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - The present appeal has been filed by Mr. Mohit Mittal (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant'), against the order dated 05th December, 2020 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma, Delhi dismissing the appellant's application under Order VI Rule XVII of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for impleading Sh, Vijaydeep Siddharth, the alleged adulterer and parents of Ms. Kanika Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') as the party to the proceedings.

2. Facts in brief are that the appellant got married to respondent on 27th april, 2016 at Delhi and got separated on 02nd July, 2016. a petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12 (1) (c) read with Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act, 1955') was filed by the appellant essentially on the grounds that the respondent was having pre-marital affair with one of her colleagues which continued after her marriage and even after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The respondent's behaviour reflected that she had planned for a divorce even before the marriage and had played a fraud.

3. During the trial, the appellant moved an application under Order VI Rule XVII of CPC, which was orally requested to be treated under Order I Rule X of CPC. The appellant had sought to implead Mr. Vijaydeep Siddharth, the colleague of the respondent, along with Mr. Surya Kant Jain and Mrs. Kamlesh Jain, the parents of the respondent being necessary and proper party to the petition.

4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court observed that the main relief sought is under Section 12 (1) (c) of the act, 1955. Though in the alternative, a prayer had been made for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the act, 1955 but no specific grounds of adultery have been pleaded. In the circumstances, the alleged adulterer cannot be added as a party. Furthermore, in the entire petition, there were no specific allegations against the parents of the respondent being a party to the alleged fraud in getting the marriage of the respondent performed with the appellant. The application was dismissed by observing that neither the adulterer nor the parents of the respondent, are necessary parties to adjudicate the petition.

5. The appellant filed CM (M) No. 1026/2021 against the Order dated 05th December, 2020 but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16th November, 2021 by observing that the impugned order passed by the Family Court was not an interlocutory order and, therefore, it was amenable to appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the act, 1984). Moreover, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the question whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order or not is to be determined by the Division Bench of this Court, as the jurisdiction to hear appeals under Section 19 of the act, 1984 lies with the Division Bench. Consequently, the appellant withdrew his CM (M) No. 1026/2021 petition.

6. The present appeal under Section 19 of the act, 1984 has now been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order which is essentially under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.

7. Submissions heard.

8. The object of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is to bring on record all persons in order to determine the dispute completely without any protraction, inconvenience and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In this context, the application of the appellant for impleadment has to be considered.

8. The appellant had filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1) (c) of the act, 1955, subsequently, by way of amendment dated 13th November, 2018, he had taken an alternative plea of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the act, 1955. The appellant has placed reliance on Clause 12 of Gazette Notification No. 262/Gaz./OSD (R) dated 06th October, 1980 of High Co