Rule 801(G) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, requiring the impleadment of an alleged adulterer as a co-respondent, applies only to petitions for divorce or judicial separation filed specifically on the grounds of adultery, and not to petitions for restitution of conjugal rights.

01/04/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. Appellant-husband is before this Court, being aggrieved against the order dated 27.01.2026 rendered by learned Family Court No.1, Bhilwara in Civil Original Case No.234/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected his application for impleading alleged

adulterer.

2. Succinctly speaking, the relevant facts of the case for the purpose of adjudication of instant appeal, shorn of the unnecessary details, are

as follows:-

2.1 The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 07.05.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage alleging that the respondent was

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:47:03 PM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:17:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14717-DB] (2 of 5) [CMA-1142/2026] subjected to alleged harassment and dowry demands and was

prevented from continuing her studies.

2.2. The appellant, on the other hand, denied all allegations in his reply and initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Act for restitution

of conjugal rights, which were contested by the respondent.

2.3. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the appellant filed an application seeking to implead Parashram Garg as a party, alleging

that the respondent was living in adultery with him.

2.4. The respondent opposed the impleadment application and denied

the allegations of adultery.

2.5. That the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.01.2026

rejected the application.

2.6 Hence, the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 is ex facie illegal, erroneous and contrary to the material on record and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate both the factual and legal aspects while rejecting the appellant’s application for impleadment. Further, it is submitted that the respondent approached the Court under Section 13 of the Act by concealing material facts and making false allegations of cruelty and dowry

demand.

3.1 It is further argued that under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1952’), particularly Rule 801(G), where adultery is alleged, the alleged adulterer must be impleaded as a co-respondent unless specifically exempted by the Court for recorded reasons. The learned Family Court failed to consider this

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:47:03 PM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:17:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14717-DB] (3 of 5) [CMA-1142/2026] mandatory procedural requirement. Counsel submits that once a specific plea of adultery is raised and supported by prima facie material, the presence of the alleged adulterer becomes essential for complete and effective adjudication, and rejection of the application violates

principles of natural justice.

3.2 Lastly, learned counsel contends that non-impleadment of the alleged adulterer prejudices the appellant’s rights by restricting his ability to prove the plea of adultery and may result in adverse findings without affording a fair opportunity to present evidence. It is further argued that the learned Family Court erred in holding such presence unnecessary, despite the respondent’s conduct being directly in issue, including in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. The impugned order is also assailed as cryptic and non-speaking, lacking cogent reasons, thereby depriving the app