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 ruled that an alleged adulterer doesn’t need to be involved in divorce proceedings and doesn’t have to be heard before a decision is made between the husband and wife. Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal explained that divorce cases are solely about the couple involved, and anyone who is not a spouse has no right to take part 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 pointed out that while the alleged adulterer could be called as a witness or evidence could be shown in family court to prove adultery, their direct involvement in the case isn’t necessary. This was discussed during the Court’s review of an appeal from a woman challenging a family court’s decision to continue with her husband’s divorce petition. The petition was based on cruelty, adultery, and desertion. The wife argued that the desertion claims against her were false and that the alleged adulterer was not included in the adultery part of the case.
After reviewing the arguments, the Bench said that conflicting claims about adultery are not enough to immediately dismiss the divorce petition. The Court also noted that the wife did not dispute the cruelty claims 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.
