The High Court ruled that a divorce petition is centered around the couple who entered into matrimony and a third party [adulterer] has no locus.
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that an alleged adulterer does not need to be included in divorce proceedings and does not have to be heard before a decision is reached between the husband and wife. Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal, on the Division Bench, clarified that a divorce case concerns only the couple involved, and a third party who is not claiming to be a spouse has no right to participate in the case.
“The alleged adulterer is, to our minds, not a necessary party as a decree can be passed in his/her absence. Likewise, the adulterer is not a proper party since the issue concerning adultery can be adjudicated without making the adulterer a party to the cause. Proof of adultery need not be conflated with who should be arrayed as a party to a divorce action,” the Court said.
The Bench also noted that while the alleged adulterer could be called as a witness or other evidence might be presented in the family court to establish adultery, this does not necessitate their involvement in the case. These observations were made during the Court’s review of an appeal from a woman contesting a family court’s decision to proceed with her husband’s divorce petition. The petition was based on three grounds: cruelty, adultery, and desertion. The wife argued before the Court that the claims of desertion against her were unfounded and that the alleged adulterer was not included in the adultery aspect of the case.
After reviewing the arguments, the Bench stated that conflicting claims about adultery alone do not justify an immediate dismissal of the divorce petition. The Court also noted that the wife did not challenge the allegations of cruelty presented in her husband’s petition.
“Thus, given the fact that allegations concerning cruelty are embedded in the divorce action, the petition cannot be rejected in a piecemeal manner upon an application being moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.”
The Court, therefore, rejected the appeal.
Advocates Prateek Goswami, Dhiraj Goswami and Shashank Goswami represented the appellant wife.
None appeared for the petitioner.
