Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court addressed the necessity of including a paramour as a ‘defendant’ in divorce cases based on adultery, highlighting exceptions to this requirement.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant-husband contended that the court below erred in denying divorce, stating that he did not directly cite adultery but used the fact to establish cruelty. On the other hand, the respondent-wife’s counsel argued that she was denied an opportunity to present her written submissions.

Court’s Judgement:

The Court examined Rule 5 of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce (Orissa High Court) Rules, 1956, which mandates the inclusion of the paramour as a co-respondent in divorce cases involving adultery. However, the Court noted exceptions allowing the petitioner to seek leave to dispense with the inclusion of the paramour.

The bench clarified that the rule necessitating the inclusion of the paramour is to be interpreted as ‘wherever possible’. Despite the mandate, exceptions permit the petitioner to seek relief from including the paramour, citing specific grounds provided in the rule.

In this case, the appellant was unable to provide detailed information about the paramour, stating the person’s business in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, but lacked further details.

The Court opined that the Family Court should not impede proceedings or deny relief solely due to the non-joinder of the paramour, especially when the appellant lacked adequate information about the said person.

As a result, the case was remitted back to the Family Court, instructing the respondent-wife to file a written statement. The High Court expressed hope for an expeditious resolution adhering to procedural norms.