The requirement to implead the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent in a petition for divorce based on adultery, as per Rule 10 of the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules,1956.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The appellant-wife is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Family Court, by which her marriage with the respondent (since deceased) was dissolved on the ground of cruelty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 14.02.1982 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Gokalgarh, Tehsil and District Rewari. At the time of marriage, the respondent was a widower as his earlier wife, namely, Ramawati died and out of the said wedlock, he had a son, namely, Ravinder Kumar, whereas the appellant was a spinster. It was pleaded by the respondent-husband that two sons, namely, Dipender and Yogender were born out of the said wedlock and when he was in service at Gujarat police at Ahmedabad, the appellant developed relations with some other person of her village Gokalgarh. It was also pleaded that the appellant had admitted the act of adultery in her letters by referring herself to be a bad woman. It was further averred in the pleadings that the appellant used to call him an eunuch (Hijra) and had refused to do the household work. It is categorically pleaded in para No.9 of the petition that in the month of August 1995, when she was at village Nimoth, her two friends came to his house on a scooter and in his presence, they talked to the appellant in a closed room and Master Mukesh kissed her in his presence. The appellant and her friend consumed liquor in his house and did sexual act in his presence, therefore, it is an act of cruelty. It is further averred that he was in service and did not come to his village from August 1995 to 15.10.1997 and during this period, the appellant was having pregnancy of 5-6 months and aborted the same on 18.10.1997 in a private hospital at Rewari. The respondent-husband has, thus, sought the decree of divorce by filing the petition on 20.10.1997 on the ground of cruelty caused by the appellant to him by living an adulterous life.

3. All the allegations made by the respondent-husband were denied by the appellant in her written statement rather she has made allegations that her husband was an alcoholic from the very beginning and used to spend all his income to pursue his bad habits instead of maintaining her and the children and used to beat her whenever she made a complaint about his bad habits.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed by the Family Court on 27.03.1998, namely, "(1) whether the petitioner is entitled to seek divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelly as well as adultery?OPP." and "(2) Relief.

5. The respondent-husband had examined himself as PW1, his brother Jaswant Singh as PW2, Ajit Singh, Record Keeper of Kalawati Hospital, as PW3 and Sarpanch Rameshwar as PW4, whereas the appellant had examined Chander Parkash, Record Keeper of Uma Bharti Senior Secondary School, Rewari as RW1, herself as RW2, Raj Kumar as RW3 and Ram Avtar as RW4. The learned Court below, after taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence led by the respondent, concluded that the appellant had been living an adulterous life which constitute cruelty and, therefore, granted the decree of divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act').

6. The appellant-wife has challenged the said decree by way of present appeal, which was admitted on 07.10.2003. Thereafter, it came on record that the respondent-husband had died on 18.11.2013 and before his death, he had executed a registered Will dated 25.03.2008, bequeathing his property in favour of Ravinder Kumar, son of his previous wife. The appellant had also filed an application bearing CM No.21703-CII of 2015 under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the legal representatives of the respondent. The said application was allowed on 23.07.2016, with the following order:-

"This is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Sect