Delhi High Court Clarifies Role of Third Parties in Divorce Petitions
The Delhi High Court has recently determined that an alleged adulterer is neither a necessary nor a proper party in divorce proceedings between a husband and wife. The Court’s ruling emphasizes that the presence of a third party—an alleged adulterer—in such cases is not required for the court to adjudicate the matter.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal, stated that divorce petitions are focused on the marital relationship between the husband and wife. As such, third parties who are not spouses have no standing to intervene in or seek inclusion in the divorce case. The Bench clarified, “The alleged adulterer is not a necessary party, as a decree can be passed in their absence. Furthermore, the adulterer is not a proper party, as the issue of adultery can be adjudicated without their involvement.”
The Court noted that evidence of adultery could be presented through other means, such as witness testimony, rather than requiring the adulterer to be made a party to the case.
The ruling came in response to an appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court’s decision that denied her request to dismiss the divorce petition filed by her husband. The divorce petition cited cruelty, adultery, and desertion as grounds for dissolution of marriage. The wife contested the accusations of desertion and argued that the alleged adulterer had not been included as a party in the proceedings.
In its decision, the Bench emphasized that allegations of cruelty and adultery need to be considered within the context of the divorce petition. It held that the petition could not be dismissed based solely on procedural objections related to the alleged adulterer’s inclusion.
The Court ultimately rejected the appeal, reinforcing that the procedural rules concerning parties in divorce cases are distinct from the substantive issues of marital misconduct.
Advocates Prateek Goswami, Dhiraj Goswami, and Shashank Goswami represented the appellant wife. The petitioner did not have representation during the proceedings.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
