MAT.APP.(F.C.) 123/2021

Page 1 of 5

$~8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 123/2021

MOHIT MITTAL

.....Appellant

Represented by:

Appellant in person.

versus

KANIKA JAIN

...... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.

Yakesh

Anand

&

Ms.

Deepshikha Sansanwal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. (ORAL)

1.

The present appeal has been filed by Mr. Mohit Mittal (hereinafter

referred to as ‘appellant’), against the order dated 05^thDecember, 2020 of

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma, Delhi

dismissing the appellant’s application under Order VI Rule XVII of Civil

Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for impleading Sh,

Vijaydeep Siddharth, the alleged adulterer and parents of Ms. Kanika Jain

2.

Facts in brief are that the appellant got married to respondent on 27^th

April, 2016 at Delhi and got separated on 02^ndJuly, 2016. A petition for

annulment of marriage under Section 12 (1) (c) read with Section 13(1) (ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1955’)

was filed by the appellant essentially on the grounds that the respondent was

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001329

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 123/2021

Page 2 of 5

having pre-marital affair with one of her colleagues which continued after

her marriage and even after the respondent left the matrimonial home. The

respondent’s behaviour reflected that she had planned for a divorce even

before the marriage and had played a fraud.

3.

During the trial, the appellant moved an application under Order VI

Rule XVII of CPC, which was orally requested to be treated under Order I

Rule X of CPC. The appellant had sought to implead Mr. Vijaydeep

Siddharth, the colleague of the respondent, along with Mr. Surya Kant Jain

and Mrs. Kamlesh Jain, the parents of the respondent being necessary and

proper party to the petition.

4.

The learned Principal Judge, Family Court observed that the main

relief sought is under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, 1955. Though in the

alternative, a prayer had been made for divorce on the ground of cruelty

under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act, 1955 but no specific grounds of adultery

have been pleaded. In the circumstances, the alleged adulterer cannot be

added as a party. Furthermore, in the entire petition, there were no specific

allegations against the parents of the respondent being a party to the alleged

fraud in getting the marriage of the respondent performed with the appellant.

The application was dismissed by observing that neither the adulterer nor the

parents of the respondent, are necessary parties to adjudicate the petition.

5.

The appellant filed CM (M) No. 1026/2021 against the Order dated

05^thDecember, 2020 but the same was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge on 16^thNovember, 2021 by observing that the impugned order passed

by the Family Court was not an interlocutory order and, therefore, it was

amenable to appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1984). Moreover, learned Senior Counsel

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001329

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 123/2021

Page 3 of 5

appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the question whether

the impugned order is an interlocutory order or not is to be determined by

the Division Bench of this Court, as the jurisdiction to hear appeals under

Section 19 of the Act, 1984 lies with the Division Bench. Consequently, the

appellant withdrew his CM (M) No. 1026/2021 petition.

6.

The present appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1984 has now been

filed by the appellant against the impugned Order which is essentially under

Order I Rule 10 C.P.C.

7.

Submissions heard.

8.

The object of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is to bring on record all persons

in order to determine the dispute completely without any protraction,

inconvenience and also to avoid multiplicit