"Necessary Party For Complete Adjudication": Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Proceedings In Which Adulterer Was Not Made Party

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court underscored the importance of including the alleged adulterer as a necessary party in divorce proceedings initiated on the grounds of adultery.

The court emphasized that the right of the alleged adulterer to be heard is crucial for a fair and just trial, and their absence can lead to an incomplete adjudication of the case. The Court said:

“It is to be noted that since the finding of adultery would adversely affect the interest of adulterer, opportunity should be given to him to defend himself and to disprove the claim of adultery, the said adulterer should be arrayed in the proceedings which would help the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy.”

The order was passed by Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty in a Civil Revision Petition filed by an aggrieved husband whose petition seeking divorce from his wife on the alleged ground of adultery was dismissed along with the petition seeking to implead the alleged adulterer to the divorce O.P.

The Civil revision petition has been filed against the order dismissing the petition to implead the alleged adulterer.

The husband had initially sought to implead the alleged adulterer as a second respondent in the divorce proceedings. However, the trial court dismissed his plea, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove the necessity of impleading the alleged adulterer. Furthermore, the divorce O.P. was also decided against the husband stating lack of evidence proving adultery.

Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the husband approached the High Court, seeking a revision of the order.

The High Court, upon reviewing the case, delved into the legal provisions and precedents related to divorce proceedings based on adultery.

The court referred to Mirapala Venkata Ramana Vs. Mirapala Peddiraju, Ch.Padmavathi Vs. Ch.Sai Babu, Radhika @ M.Lavanya Vs. M.Lokender and also to Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates the joinder of an alleged adulterer as a co-respondent in a divorce petition.

The court reasoned that the alleged adulterer has a direct interest in the outcome of the divorce proceedings, as their reputation and character are at stake. Denying them the opportunity to participate in the proceedings would violate their fundamental right to be heard. Moreover, the court highlighted that the alleged adulterer's testimony and evidence could be crucial in determining the truth of the allegations and arriving at a just decision.

“Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the alleged adulterer-Kranti Kondapalli is a necessary and proper party to the O.P. and in fact, the O.P. would be hit by his non-joinder. The trial Court committed irregularity and illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside," it said.

Therefore the Revision was allowed and the dismissal order of the implead petition, passed by the trial court was set aside.

Phani Raghavalu Meduri vs Lakshmi Meduri

CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2192 of 2023

Counsel for petitioner: J.Prabhakar, senior counsel, representing Ms. V.Preeti Reddy

Counsel for respondent: Ch.Koteswara Rao.

Click Here To Read/Download Order