The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the court to entertain a counter-claim and the need to avoid unnecessary delay in proceedings.

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

1. The husband has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 13.2.2012, passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the counter-claim filed by him under Section 23-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, in the divorce petition filed by the wife (respondent herein) under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty, has been dismissed. As a consequence of the said order, the trial court has also dismissed the application filed by the appellant-husband under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') for impleading one Gaurav Saini son of M.K. Saini, the alleged adulterer, as respondent in the divorce petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Chandigarh on 21.2.2001. Out of this wed-lock, two children, one son and one daughter, were born on 3.12.2001 and 28.10.2003, who are now aged about ten years and eight years, respectively. On 16.3.2007, the appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act in the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging therein that the respondent-wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse. It was alleged that after receipt of notice of the said petition, on 1.6.2007, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act at Chandigarh for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is admitted position that in the said divorce petition, the appellant-husband filed written statement on 3.3.2008. It is also an admitted fact that while filing the said written statement, the appellant-husband did not file any counter-claim for any relief, which could have been granted against the respondent-wife under the Act.

3. Thereafter, on the transfer petitions filed by the respondent-wife, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure A5), transferred the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act and the contempt petition filed by the appellant against the respondent, from the court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to the District Court at Chandigarh, where the wife's petition under Section 13 of the Act was pending. At that time, the divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife was at the stage of arguments. While transferring the aforesaid petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the District Court, Chandigarh to take up and dispose of the transferred cases along with the divorce petition and requested the trial court to expedite the disposal of both the cases.

4. When both the cases were not decided as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent-wife filed Civil Revision No. 4421 of 2011 in this Court, seeking direction to the trial court to decide both the cases in a time frame manner. Vide order dated 18.8.2011, this Court, while keeping in view the ages of the parties, nature of litigation, future of their children, and totality of other facts and circumstances, directed the trial court to complete the trial of both the matrimonial cases within a period of four months positively, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

5. The period of four months expired on 18.12.2011. Thereafter, on request of the trial court, the time to decide both the cases was extended by this Court upto 22.2.2012. In view of the time frame fixed by this Court, the trial court took the case for hearing on day to day basis, so that the trial of the cases could be concluded within the time prescribed by this Court. The divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, whereas the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the appellant-husband was at the stage of evidence of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband