Easwaran vs Mani on 6 December, 2000
?9. The extract from the judgment, in Easwaran v. Mani, 2001 (1) MLJ 318, was
not just a passing comment and this is seen from the following paragraphs in
the said judgment:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Rajee vs Baburao on 11 August, 1995
14. It has been held in Rajee v. Baburao, 1995 TNLJ 239 as follows:
"In a petition for divorce, rules require that the specific act of adultery
and the occasion when and the place where such acts were committed together
with the name and address of the person with whom such adultery was
committed, should be given".
Mirapala Venkata Ramana vs Mirapala Peddiraju on 10 February, 2000
In Mirapala Venkatammana v. Mirapala Peddiraju, 2000 (II) DMC 40 (DB),
the Division Bench of the Andra Pradesh High Court held that the failure of
the husband to implead the alleged adulterer rendered the petition bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties, Paragraph 2 of the said judgment is
relevant.
Udai Narain Bajpai vs Smt. Kusum Bajpai on 12 August, 1974
"2. Even though the said plea was recorded by the lower Court, the lower
Court did not concentrate on that aspect at all. In a case for divorce basing
on adultery, the adulterer is a necessary party and ought to be made second
respondent in the instant case. But, the respondent/husband had failed to
implead the alleged adulterer and as such the opposite party is hit by non-
joinder of necessary party. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of
Allahabad High Court in Udai Narain Bajpal v. Smt. Kusum Bajpai, , wherein
the Court held as follows;
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
1