J U D G M E N T

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No. 297 of 2021. The C.P. has been filed by the opposite party-husband in the marriage under the provision of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties solemnised on 19.01.2020 and for grant of a decree of divorce, the present petitioner-wife in the marriage being the opposite party.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard at length.

3. In the pending petition the present petitioner who is the defendant filed application on 05.01.2026 purportedly under Order O.1 Rule 10(2) read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure that was rejected by the order dated 16.01.2026, under challenge.

Copy of the said application has been annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-4. The prayer in the application is to implead a lady stating her to be the sister- in-law of the petitioner-husband and seeking to implead her as intervenor/petitioner.

4. Learned Judge, Family Court for deciding the application has considered the application as well as the objection of the petitioner-husband.

The submissions of the defendant wife support her prayer in the interlocutory application have been noted by the learned Family Court in order dated 16.1.2026 which is reproduced herein :

“It is submitted by the respondent that she categorically expressed the illicit relationship with the intervenor by the petitioner in her written statement in paragraph-16 (b) to (f). If the proceeding is decided in absence of the intervenor, she would suffer irremediable damage which cannot be compensated in any pecuniary benefit. It is further, submitted that the intervenor is the necessary party and her presence is necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the dispute and ensuring justice.”

5. The objections of the petitioner-husband have been noted in the said order which is reproduced herein :

“…that the petitioner being dominus litis has every right to add and delete of any parties. The respondent since 07.12.2023 is avoiding to adduce evidence by filing and false and baseless petitions only to delay the proceeding. It is further submitted that the averments made by the respondent against Smt. Rekha Nayak are baseless, false and without evidence. She is neither a necessary party nor a proper party as the issue in the present case revolved around cruelty being committed by the respondent towards the petitioner…”

The defendant wife has filed rejoinder which has also been noted by the learned Family Court.

6. The conclusions of the learned Family Court are that the Court must be satisfied that the presence of the party sought to be impleaded would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Orissa High Court) Rules, 1956 prescribes Rule-5 regarding the necessary parties which empowers petitioner to make such person as co-respondent on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery or has committed adultery with any person.

It has been observed by the learned Family Judge thus :

“the respondent submitted her written statement defending her case denying all the allegations leveled against her as well as allegation of cruelty against the petitioner without any specific prayer. When there is specific provision such as Rule-5 of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Orissa High Court) Rules, 1956 and Order-1 Rule-10 (2) CPC, I do not think that Sec. 151 CPC is applicable in the present fact and circumstances. The specific provisions categorically allows the petitioner to add necessary party on the ground of adultery only. The respondent had not taken any ground of adultery in order to get a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document