( 1 ) THE petitioner filed a petition for divorce under sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 against his wife Vimal on the ground that she was living with one Madhukar opponent No. 2. He also claimed Rs. 10 0 as damages from Madhukar. The learned Civil Judge held that the claim for damages was not tenable in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

( 2 ) IN revision it is contended that under Rule 5 of the Bombay High Court Rules it is obligatory for a petitioner who files a petition on the ground of adultery to name and cite the co-respondent. It is therefore urged that under order 2 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rule 3 C. P. Code the claim for damages against an adulterer can be joined in the petition for divorce in view of the provisions of sec. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 It is also contended that under the Hindu Marriage Act the forms attached to the Indian Divorce Act have to be followed as far as possible and that the form in Sch. II of the Indian Divorce Act makes a provision for a claim of damages. It is also contended that under art. 21 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act as amended there is a provision for court-fees in a claim for damages against an adulterer in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is therefore contended that under the Court fees Act a claim for damages can be joined in a petition for divorce. It is lastly contended that unless there is a provision barring such a joinder the joinder of a claim for damages against an adulterer in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act should be allowed which lies under the law of Torts.

( 3 ) IN my opinion there is no merit in any of these contentions for the following reasons:under Rule 5 of the rules framed by the Bombay High Court under sec. 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act it is provided that the alleged adulterer should be joined as co-respondent. Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows :

( 4 ) SUBJECT to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as the High Court may make in this behalf. all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908 ).

( 5 ) AS provided in the section all proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act shall be regulated as far as may be by the Code of Civil Procedure and by the rules made by the High Court in this behalf. But the section does not provide that the Civil Procedure Code and the High Court Rules shall decide what proceedings shall lie under the Act What proceedings lie under the Act must be found in the provision of the Act itself. There is no provision in the Hindu Marriage Act whereby in a petition for divorce the husband can claim damages against the alleged adulterer. There is such a provision in sec. 34 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 but there is no such provision in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 That is why in the form attached to the Indian Divorce Act there is a provision relating to claim for damages against the adulterer. But forms attached to the Indian Divorce Act are only to be used as far as possible in a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. As the Hindu Marriage Act makes no provision for a claim for damages against the alleged adulterer such a claim does not lie simply because in the form attached to the Indian Divorce Act claim for damages is shown as follows :petition by husband for a dissolution of marriage with damages against co-respondent by reason of adultery.

( 6 ) THIS was in view of sec. 34 the Indian Divorce Act 1869

( 7 ) AS regards the contention that under Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 2 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code there can be a joinder of causes of action we must remember that under the Hindu Marriage Act a petition is filed for divorce. Assuming without deciding that a suit lies against the alleged adulterer for damages under the law of Torts such a suit could not be joined in the petition under the Hi