The petitioner has challenged an order dated 04.01.2023

passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi in

M.C.No.305/2021, by which, an application filed by him under

order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC was rejected.

2.

A petition in M.C.No.305/2021 was filed by the

respondent herein for dissolution of the marriage under Section

10(1)(ix), (x) of the Divorce Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Act, 1989' for short). This petition was contested by the

petitioner herein.

3.

Later, the petitioner filed an application under Order

VII Rule 11(d) of CPC contending that when the respondent

had sought for dissolution of the marriage under Section

10(1)(ix), (x) of the Act, 1989 claiming that the petitioner was

living in adultery and had named the adulteress in the petition

but did not implead her as a party as mandated under Section

11 of the Act, 1989. He contended that the Court had not

dispensed the adulteress from being made a party. He

therefore submits that the petition for dissolution of marriage is

therefore not maintainable.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the records

as well as the petition filed before the trial Court.

- 3 -

5.

The respondent was entitled to seek for dissolution

of marriage on various grounds set out in Section 10 of the Act,

1989 including the ground available under Section 10(1)(i) of

the Act, 1989 namely, the petitioner was living in adultery or

had committed adultery. However, she has not chosen to

invoke Section 10(1)(i) but has restricted the grounds to

Section 10(1)(ix) and Section 10(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. The

provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1989 is applicable only

when a petition for dissolution of the marriage is presented on

the ground of adultery. While in the present case, the

respondent has not sought for dissolution of the marriage on

the ground of adultery, but on the ground that the petitioner

had treated her cruelly and that he had deserted her.

6.

In that view of the matter, the trial Court has

rightly rejected the application and therefore, there is no

reason to interfere with the same. Hence, this petition lacks

merit and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NR/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

CT: STK