1. This is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act"), challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006, allowing the petition of the respondent under section 13 of the Act, and granting him a decree for divorce against the appellant-wife.

2. Undisputedly the appellant was married to the respondent-husband on 22.4.2004 in accoreance with Hindu rites at village Dhaba Goutman Tola of Distrit Rewa. After marriage she had gone to her in-laws place and stayed with them for a period of 8-10 days and thereafter she came to her parents' place at village Dhaba Goutman Tola. According to respondent, after marriage though he lived with his wife, but he had no physical relation with his wife. The appellant-Neelam was having illicit relations with Anurag Mishra and when she was residing at her parents' place, she with her consent had gone to Surat with Anurag Mishra on 12.9.2005 and she stayed with him for a period of more than one month at Surat in one room and during this period she had physical relations with him. Thus, she had extra-marital relations with one Anugram Mishra to whom she knew prior to her marriage and, therefore, he prayed that a decree for divorce be granted under section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

3. The appellant/non-applicant filed her written statement in which she admitted her marriage with the respondent on 22.4.2004 but she denied that after marriage she had gone to her in-laws place and stayed there for 8-10 days with her husband. She also denied" that due to her resistance, respondent had no physical relation with her. It is contended that she was abducted by one Anurag Mishra on 12.9.2005 and when her uncle Shivanand Tiwari and police personnel of police station Hanumana came to Surat she was taken to her parents' place at district Rewa. She lodged FIR against Anurag Mishra. After investigation challen has been filed and a criminal case under section 368, 498 and 347 of IPC had been registered against the accused. She denied that she had extra-marital relation with Anurag Mishra and contended that on 12.9.2005 she was coming from Hanumana College she was abducted by said Anurag Mishra and was at Surat for a period of more than one month. The appellant-wife therefore prayed that petition for divorce be dismissed.

4. The trial Court after appreicating the statement of respondent, Sunil Kumar (PW1), Brijbhan Prasad Tiwari (PW2), Abhimanu (PW3), Chhotelal Dubey (PW4), appellant-Neelam (NAW1), father of the appellant Daya Shanker Dwivedi (NAW2) and Buddhsen Sen (NAW3) came to the conclusion that the appellant had voluntarily sexual intercourse with Anurag Mishra other than her spouse. The respondent by adducing cogent evidence sufficiently proved the ground of adultery and granted a decree for divorce against the appellant by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.11.2006.

5. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that allegation against present appellant was that she is living in adultery with one Anurag Mishra but he was not impleaded as co-respondent in the petition which is mandatory. In support of the said contention, he drew my attention to the Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court M.K. Kunhiraman v. Santha alias Devaki [AIR 1998 Kerala 189], in which High Court of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under section 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India framed the rules with the previous approval of the Governor to regulate proceedings under the said Act. Rule 7(4) of the said Rule states that in every petition presented by a husband for divorce on the ground that his wife is living in adultery with any person or persons, the petitioner shall implead the person or persons as co-respondent in the petition by stating the name, occupation and place of residence of such person or persons so far as they can be ascertained. Here in the present case, there is no suc