The Madras High Court has held that when a divorce petition is filed on the grounds of adultery, the alleged adulterer must be made a co-respondent if their details are known. This ensures that the accused party has an opportunity to refute the claims made against them. However, if the details of the alleged adulterer are unknown, the petitioner may be excused from this requirement with the court's permission.
The bench, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice R. Poornima, emphasized that branding someone as an adulterer carries serious social consequences. The court ruled:
Read Also:- Madras High Court Approves Isha Foundation's Maha Shivaratri Celebrations Amid Pollution Concerns
“If the petitioner is aware of the details of the alleged adulterer, he or she must be made a co-respondent. Failure to implead would be fatal, and the petitioner will have to be non-suited summarily at the very threshold. If the name of the adulterer is unknown or if the person is deceased, the petitioner can be excused, but only with the court's leave.”
This ruling reinforces the principle of natural justice, ensuring that no one is condemned without being given a chance to defend themselves.
The Role of Natural Justice
The court underscored that natural justice principles apply to all branches of law, including matrimonial disputes:
“Opportunity ought to be given to the said individual to disprove the allegation made by the petitioner. Otherwise, he would stand condemned behind his back. Certainly, in our culture, to be branded an adulterer is not a badge of honor.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Denies Relief To HD Kumaraswamy In Corruption Case Over Land Denotification
This statement highlights the importance of providing a fair chance to the accused to present their side of the story.
Preventing Baseless Allegations
Another key aspect of the ruling is that requiring the alleged adulterer to be named as a co-respondent discourages false accusations. The court stated:
“If making the alleged adulterer a co-respondent is made mandatory, one would think twice before putting forth baseless allegations.”
This measure aims to prevent frivolous cases where one party might falsely accuse the other of adultery without sufficient proof.
Legal Provisions and Past Judgments
The court referred to existing laws and past judgments to support its decision. It noted that the Madras High Court Rules, framed under Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, require a divorce petition based on adultery to include details of the adulterous acts and the name and address of the involved party.
Additionally, Section 11 of the Divorce Act, 1869, mandates that the adulterer must be made a co-respondent unless the petitioner is excused due to specific reasons, such as:
- The name of the adulterer is unknown despite due efforts.
- The adulterer is deceased.
- The spouse has been living an immoral life, and no particular person can be identified.
The court also referred to various High Court rulings across India, noting that some courts view the adulterer as a necessary party while others consider them a proper but not essential party.
Case Background: Meenakshi vs. Kannan
The case in question involved a dispute between Meenakshi and Kannan. Kannan had filed for divorce on the ground of adultery, but he did not provide sufficient details about the alleged adulterer, Jagadeesan.
- The Family Court in Sivagangai had granted Kannan’s divorce petition.
- However, Meenakshi appealed against the decision, arguing that the petition was fundamentally defective due to the lack of proper evidence and failure to name the alleged adulterer.
- The High Court found that Kannan had not made due efforts to obtain the adulterer’s address, despite knowing his identity.
- As a result, the court set aside the Family Court’s order and ruled in favor of Meenakshi.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. P. Aju Tagore
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. Bharathy Kannan
Case No: C.M.A.(MD)No.434 of 2019