The Delhi High Court passed a crucial judgement regarding the inclusion of Respondent No. 4 in a divorce case. The decision aimed to ensure clarity and accuracy in the legal proceedings, particularly in light of the involvement of Respondent No. 1’s wife with Respondents No. 2 and 4. The court emphasized the importance of providing material particulars about parties involved, as per the rules under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This case summary delves into the nuances of the ruling and its implications on divorce cases.
Facts
- The Family Court provided a rationale for passing the direction under the CPC.
- Following this direction, the appellant was instructed to amend the memo of parties.
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellant mentioned during the hearing that Respondent No. 1’s wife is involved with respondents No. 2 and 4 as well.
- This information was crucial to understanding the dynamics of the case.
- The argument put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that the rules framed by the Delhi High Court required impleadment of paramours as parties in a divorce petition is not supported by the rules presented.
- In cases where a divorce petition is based on the ground of one spouse engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than their spouse, the petition must provide specific details about the said person but does not require them to be named as a party.
- The requirement is to include material particulars about the paramour(s) in the pleadings, as per Rule 7(g)(iii) of the Delhi High Court Rules under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- The Family court will ensure that only relevant parts containing details about the paramour(s) are retained in the pleadings.
- The appeal is disposed of based on the above considerations.
Analysis
- The Family Court has directed that respondent no.4 should be shown as respondent no.3
- Material particulars need to be provided regarding the said respondent
- The Court’s decision aims to ensure clarity and accuracy in the case proceedings
Case Title: MANJUL JOSHI Vs. BHAVNA KHURANA (2024:DHC:4170-DB)
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.)-138/2024
