Alok Aradhe, J.

1. Shri R.K. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Greeshm Jain with Shri Dilip Parihar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 7-12-2010 passed by the trial Court by which the Petitioner has been directed to delete the name of Respondent No. 2 from the cause title of the petition.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that Petitioner had filed a petition seeking divorce against Respondent No. 1 on the ground of adultery and cruelty. In the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Petitioner impleaded the Respondent No. 2 as Respondent in the petition. However, the trial Court held that Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, relates only to proceedings of divorce between husband and wife and, therefore, the third party cannot be impleaded in the aforesaid proceedings. It was further held that presence of Respondent No. 2 is not necessary to pass an effective decre