Husband Seeks Divorce Over Wife's "Cruelty" In Making False Adultery Allegations: MP High Court Rules Alleged Paramour Not 'Necessary Party'

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to interfere with an order rejecting a woman's plea for impleadment of her husband's alleged paramour in divorce proceedings initiated by him after observing that alleged paramour was not a necessary party. 

The husband had sought divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act; subsequently the wife moved a plea seeking to implead his alleged paramour in the case, which was rejected by the family court in its March 17, 2021 order. 

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in its order said, "If the wife failed to prove allegation of adultery levelled against the husband and ultimately the Court comes to the conclusion that the wife without having any proof or foundation defamed the husband and his family members, can grant decree of divorce, if according to the Court the said conduct of the wife comes within the ambit of cruelty". 

The high court further said that the family court's order did not suffer from "material illegality or irregularity" that would warrant any interference. 

Background

The respondent husband filed a plea before the family court under Section 13(a)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce against the petitioner wife on the ground of cruelty. He claimed cruelty on the ground that the petitioner wife had alleged that he was in an "illicit relationship" with another woman.

The respondent husband, however, claimed this allegation was absolutely false and incorrect. He said that the petitioner wife had also intimated his friends and relatives of the husband thereby, defaming him and his family members.

Before the family court the parties had adduced their evidence and the case was at the stage of passing the final judgment. Meanwhile the wife filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the CPC in order to make the alleged paramour of the husband as a party to the suit.

In the application, the wife submitted that the woman is a necessary party and without making her as a party in the matter, proper adjudication of dispute between the parties cannot be made. 

Meanwhile the husband responded by stating that the suit can be decided without impleading the woman as a party. It was further replied that only on the basis of false allegations, it is not appropriate to implead the woman as a party in the litigation.

The Family Court after considering the petitioner wife's application rejected it by stating that the allegation with regard to illicit relationship of the husband with other women was though made, but they are not required to be impleaded as a party as they are neither necessary nor formal parties. Against this order the petitioner wife moved the high court.

Before the high court, the counsel for the petitioner wife referred to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajesh Devi vs. Jai Prakash (2019) wherein the court had said: “In the present case, the decree has been granted to the respondent on the alleged act of adultery by the appellant without impleading the adulterer who has been specifically named in para No. 9 of the petition. Rule 6 of the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956 provides that if a petition for divorce is filed on the ground of adultery, then the particulars of the adulterer have to be given as early as possible. Rule 10 of the Rules provides that it is incumbent upon the petitioner husband or wife to implead the adulterer as a co-respondent but for three exceptions which are provided therein...it is apparent that the spouse alleging adultery, has to implead the alleged adulterer as a party and in the absence of the said adulterer as a correspondent, the plea of adultery cannot be accepted.”

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for the husband referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Shivi Bansal vs. Gaurav Bansal (2024) wherein it was observed, “In our view, even though the conclusion reached by the Family Court Judge on this score is correct, i.e., that the divorce petition cannot be rejected in part, arraying a third party to a divorce petition is neither proper nor necessary. A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, whereas, a proper party enables complete and final adjudication of issues involved in a given lis...Proof of adultery need not be conflated with who should be arrayed as a party to a divorce action".

Findings

Perusing through the judgments relied by the petitioner, the high court said that in all those judgements the decree of divorce was sought for on the ground of adultery. The high court said that the analogy followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajesh Devi is not applicable to the present case, as decree of divorce was not being sought on the ground of adultery.

The high court said that in the present case divorce was being sought by the respondent husband "on the ground of cruelty as wife made false allegation of adultery against the husband". 

"Thus, in the present case, if wife fails to prove her allegations, the decree of divorce can be granted by the Court in favour of the husband considering the fact whether the allegation of adultery made without any foundation against the husband comes within the definition of cruelty or not...Had it been a case where decree of divorce is being sought by the wife on the ground of adultery casting aspersion upon the husband saying that he is an adulterer, then in that situation, the other person would have been required to be impleaded so as to prove the allegations against the husband. But, here the situation is otherwise and as such, the Court has to see whether the wife has collected sufficient material and produced it before the Court to prove the allegation or not," the high court said adding that the alleged paramour need not be made a party to the proceeding on the wife's request. 

Finding the wife's plea without any merit, the high court dismissed the same. 

Case Title: X v Y 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 244

Click Here To Read/Download Order