THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2864 of 2024

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 29.08.2024 in I.A. No. 45 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No. 67 of 2023 passed by the Family Court-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge at Nalgonda.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in the main petition.

3. The petitioner herein filed the subject petition as petitioner for dissolution of marriage vide F.C.O.P. No. 67 of 2023 (Old No.1288 of 2019) under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 45 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No. 67 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 r/w section 151 of Civil procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) seeking permission to implead proposed respondent No.2 as respondent in the above petition. The said application is filed on the ground that he is necessary and proper party to the main petition for effective adjudication of matter.

5. The trial Court dismissed the underlying interlocutory application holding that the proposed respondent need not be impleaded in above suit. The trial court observed that the allegation of the petitioner with regard to one Survi Venkatesh Goud is without any oral or documentary evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court held the proposed respondent could not be impleaded as respondent in the petition, as his addition was not necessary for the effective adjudication of the matter.

6. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 29.08.2024 the petitioner herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. Heard Shri P.V. Bhanu Prakash learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

8. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10 CPC by not impleading the proposed respondent in the above petition, despite he being necessary party to the petition; that in order to prove the illicit relationship which the petitioner herein has also pleaded and sought divorce; that further the trial Court did not consider the cross examination of PW-2 i.e. father of the respondent in M.C. No. 06 of 2020, photographs, printouts of WhatsApp messages and call records exchanged between the respondent herein and proposed respondent; thus, the proposed respondent is essential for the effective adjudication of the petition; and that the trial Court erred in misapplying settled legal principles regarding impleadment.

9. The petitioners further contend that if the proposed respondent is not impleaded as respondent, it would be difficult to prove the illicit relationship being alleged by him against respondent to obtain the decree of divorce.

10. Per contra, the respondent herein contends that the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of merit, as the petitioner herein allegedly made false allegations; that his impleadment is not essential for effective adjudication. Thus, the application filed lack of bona fides and is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

12. The petition vide F.C.O.P No. 67 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner seeking dissolution of marriage claiming decree of divorce. The petitioner in the underlying application is seeking to implead the proposed respondent on the basis of photographs, Copy of FIR No.75/2019 dated 30.07.2019, receipt showing the purchase of jewellry from one Sri Tirumala Jewellers. Basing on the said documents, though the petitioner sought to establish the fact that the proposed respondent is a necessary party, it is to be noted that in a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC in order to implead a party as respondent, one needs to show that without the proposed respondent having impleaded as a party respondent an effective decree cannot be passed.

13. , Though the petitioner contends that in order to prove the adultery of respondent herein the