$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 386/2025 MANJUL JOSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.D. Singh, Mr. Prateek Jindal and Ms. Simran Bhatti, Advocates.

versus BHAVNA KHURANA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Adab Singh Kapoor and Mr.

Abhigyan, Advocates.

Respondent through VC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 16.02.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present proceedings were initially initiated by way of MAT.APP.

(F.C.) 138/2024, seeking the following prayers:-

“a. Issue notice to the Respondent No. 3 in Divorce Petition bearing HMA No. 399/2024 titled “Manjul Joshi v. Bha na Khurana & Ors.”; b. Re-instate the pleadings qua the Respondent No. 3 in the Divorce Petition bearing HMA No. 399/2024 titled “Manjul Joshi v. Bha na Khurana & Ors.”;

c. Set-aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by Hon'ble Court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. Judge, Family Court, South-East District, Saket Court, Delhi in HMA No. 399/2024 thereby d. Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in favour of the appellant.”

3. Vide the impugned order dated 28.03.2024, the learned Family Court had directed for deletion of respondent no. 3, i.e., Ms. Devanshi Gupta, from the array of parties, in exercise of powers under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. The aforesaid respondent no. 3 was impleaded on account of averments made in the pleadings, claiming adulterous relations with respondent no. 1/wife, particularly in paragraphs 16 hh and 16 ss of the divorce petition. Learned Family Court had further directed to delete the pleadings with respect to respondent no. 3 and file an amended petition.

4. The said appeal, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 138/2024, was disposed of by learned Division Bench vide decision dated 14.05.2024 by observing as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx 5. In short, the Family Court has directed that respondent no.4 should be shown as respondent no.3 and material particulars should be provided qua the said respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the course of the hearing, informed us that respondent no.s 2 and 4 are also paramours of respondent no. l, i.e., the wife.

7. On being queried, whether paramours have to be arrayed as parties in a divorce petition, the response that we received from learned counsel for the appellant is that the rules framed by the Delhi High Court in this behalf, required impleadment of paramours in a divorce action.

7.1 In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us the following extract from the Delhi High Court Rules, which are contained in Part E of Chapter 1:

"PART E RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, (CENTRAL ACT NO.25 OF 1955)

HIGH COURT OF DELHI Delhi, the 6th October, 1980 No.262/Gaz./OSD (R) - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act No. 25 of 1955) and all other powers enabling in this behalf the High Court of Delhi hereby makes the following rules to regulate the proceedings under the said Act.

xxx xxx xxx

7. Contents of petition - In addition to the particulars required to be given under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code and Section 20(1) of the Act, all petitions under Section 9 to 13 shall state: xxx xxx xxx (g) The matrimonial offence or offences alleged or other grounds, upon which the relief is sought, setting out with sufficient particularity the time and places of the acts alleged, and other facts relied upon, but not the evidence by which they are intended to be proved, e.g.

xxx xxx xxx (iii) In every petition for judicial separation/divorce by either the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse, the petitioner shall state the name, occupation and place of residence of such person or persons so far as they can be ascertained, the specific acts