In divorce proceedings alleging adultery, the alleged adulterer must be joined as a co-respondent for effective adjudication, as mandated by Rule 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.277 of 2021 in O.P.No.489 of 2020.

2. The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead one Kranti Kondapally in the O.P. as respondent No.2. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the said application.

3. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel, representing Ms. V.Preeti Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, and Sri Ch.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.

4. The O.P. was filed by the petitioner-husband for dissolution of marriage between him and the respondent-wife, by granting a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty and adultery on the part of the respondent-wife.

5. In the said O.P., the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC praying to implead one Kranti Kondapally in the said O.P. as respondent No.2.

6. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, the petitioner alleged that on 25.02.2019, he received a call from one Kranti Kondapalli saying that he is in love with the respondent, who was his fiancée by then, and he even went to Vizag with the respondent and pleaded the petitioner to break the engagement. On questioning, the respondent confessed that she was in relationship with the said Kranti Kondapalli for the past six months and broke up with him. She further confessed that as the said Kranti Kondapalli threatened that he will spoil her marriage with the petitioner and kill her, fearing for life and security, she left to Vizag with the said Kranti Kondapalli. The petitioner was very upset on hearing all this, but the respondent assured that she will never contact the said Kranti Kondapalli again and completely broke the relationship with him and therefore, in good faith he married the respondent.

6.1. It was further alleged that even after marriage, the respondent used to be in regular touch with the said Kranti Kondapally over conference calls with her friend-G.Anusha and Ramya as she wanted to conceal about her illicit relationship. The petitioner also found some emails which showed that the respondent was still in touch with the said Kranti Kondapally after marriage and she aborted the said Kranti's child in the past. The respondent caught the respondent red handed chatting with the said Kranti Kondapalli in the mid night. Therefore, in the said circumstances, he prayed the court to implead the said Kranti Kondapalli as respondent No.2 in the O.P.

7. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying each and every allegation levelled against her regarding her illicit relationship with one Kranthi Kondapally. On the other hand, she stated that the petitioner used to torture and harass her by suspecting that she had illegal relationship with the said Kranti Kondapalli. The petitioner used to blackmail her in an emotional manner and even not allowed her to meet any of her friends and also to go to her mother's house. The respondent stated that the petitioner's intention is to avoid her by hook or crook and is trying to create a story for his gain of illegal desires and defame her in the society and therefore, he filed the present petition with all false and bald allegations against her. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. Before the trial Court, the proposed party i.e., the said Kranti Kondapally remained ex parte.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the O.P. was filed seeking divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty and that the trial Court failed to take into account several documents filed along with the application, a perusal of which shows that the issue of 'adultery' is one of the triable issues. He contended that the alleged adulterer is a necessary and proper party to the O.P.

10. Learned counsel further contended that the wife of the pro