ABDUL REHIM, J.

1. Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P5, P6 & P7 orders passed by the Family Court, Thrissur on 10-11-2017 in I.A. Nos.5352/2017, 5881/2017 & 5882/2017 in O.P. No.969/2017.

2. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 16-04-2014. Due to the estrangement in their marital relationship, the petitioner instituted O.P. No.764/2015 before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of alleged desertion by the wife, under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said original petition was subsequently transferred to Family Court, Thrissur and re-numbered as O.P. No.969/2017. The three interim applications mentioned above were filed by the petitioner in the said case. In one among the applications, the petitioner sought for an amendment of the original petition in order to incorporate an additional ground and relief, based on an allegation that the respondent is leading an adulterous life with her own brother. It is stated that, the petitioner had some suspicions about such a relationship even earlier. But he had not pleaded the same since he was not sure about it. Now the said fact became more clear and evident when the wife of the respondent's brother had filed a case before the Family Court, Thrissur as O.P No.1494/2014 seeking dissolution of their marriage by impleading the respondent herein as alleged adulterer. Further it is mentioned that, the sister-in-law of the respondent had also filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur alleging offence punishable under Section 498 A IPC, in which the respondent herein is also implicated as an accused. Under such circumstances, through the amendment, the petitioner seeks to incorporate an additional ground of adultery for dissolution of the marriage.

3. The second among the interim applications was filed to implead the brother of the respondent as additional respondent (co-respondent/adulterer). The third interim application is to amend the 'cause title' of the original petition to include the name of the alleged adulterer.

4. The court below had dismissed all the three interim applications through cryptic orders, similarly worded as follows;

“Since adulterer cannot be implead subsequently in a case of divorce, the petition is dismissed.”

5. Dismissal of the interim applications on the ground that adulterer cannot be impleaded subsequently in a case of divorce, is challenged as an illegal, erroneous and improper finding. It is contended that the amendment proposed will not change the character of the lis or the cause of action. So also it is contended that the amendment will not cause any prejudice either to the respondent or to the person sought to be impleaded, because they will get sufficient opportunity to contest the matter. On the other hand, refusal of the amendment will lead to prejudice to the petitioner, because it will preclude him to contest the case on legally valid grounds available to him, is the contention.

6. The question remains no more 'res integra'. Rule 7 (4) of the Hindu Marriage (Kerala) Rules, 1963 stipulates that, in every petition presented by the husband for divorce on the ground that his wife is living in adultery with any person or persons, or for judicial separation on the ground that his wife has after solemnization of the marriage had sexual intercourse with any person or persons other than him, the petitioner shall state the name, occupation and place of residence of such person or persons so far as they can be ascertained. Rule 11 of the said Rules insists that, in every petition for divorce or judicial separation on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery or has, after solemnization of the marriage, had sexual intercourse with any person, the petitioner shall make the alleged adulterer a c