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 recently decided that an alleged adulterer does not need to be involved in a divorce case and doesn’t need to be heard before a decision is made between the husband and wife.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal explained that a divorce case is about the couple, and a third party who isn’t claiming to be a spouse doesn’t have the right to be involved 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 mentioned that the alleged adulterer could be called as a witness or other evidence could be used in the family court to prove adultery.
These comments came while the Court was reviewing an appeal from a woman who challenged a family court’s decision not to reject her husband’s divorce petition.
The divorce petition was based on three reasons: cruelty, adultery, and desertion.
The wife told the Court that the claims of desertion against her were not valid and that the alleged adulterer was not included in the case about adultery.
After considering the arguments, the Bench said that conflicting claims about adultery alone aren’t enough to immediately dismiss the divorce petition.
The Court also pointed out that the wife didn’t dispute the claims of cruelty made in her husband’s divorce 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.”
As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal.
The appellant wife was represented by advocates Prateek Goswami, Dhiraj Goswami, and Shashank Goswami.
No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.