Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Husband is the appellant in this appeal. He married the respondent on 5-1-1975 and three children were born in the wedlock who were aged 16, 10 and 8 years. The appellant filed O.P. 68/93 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode against the respondent that on the night of 24-1-1993 when the appellant knocked at the door of the house where the wife was residing, he happened to see the respondent in the company of another man, in nude. He also saw the person running through the back door of the house and when the appellant questioned her the wife said that the person who was with her was one Kunhiraman. She also confessed that she was leading adulterous life with Kunhiraman for about 10 years. Therefore the appellant filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce.
2. The respondent contested the petition contending that the appellant was always of a suspicious nature of her fidelity and the incident of 24-1-1993 averred in the petition is only a story invented for the purpose of this petition. She also denied that she has confessed to him that she is leading an adulterous life. The family Court examined the appellant as P.W. 1 and the respondent as R.W. 1. The Family Court on an analysis of evidence adduced found that there are no grounds at all for dissolving the marriage on the ground of adultery as alleged in the petition. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the above appeal. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent wife is living in adultery not only with Kunhiraman but also with others. However they were not impleaded as corespondent or respondents in the petition which is mandatory. The High Court of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India framed the rules with the previous approval of the Governor to regulate proceedings under the said Act. Rule 7 deals with contents of the petition. Rule 7(4) states that in every petition presented by a husband for divorce on the ground that his wife is living in adultery with any person or persons or for judicial separation on the ground that his wife has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had sexual intercourse with any person or persons other than him, the petitioner shall state the name, occupation and place of residence of such person or persons so far as they can be ascertained. Rule 11 of the rules deals with "necessary parties". Rule 11 (a) says that in every petition for divorce or judicial separation on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery or has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had sexual intercourse with any person, the petitioner shall make such person a co-respondent.
3. This case is filed by the husband for divorce on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery with one Kunhiraman and also with others. Therefore the appellant shall implead the person or persons who had sexual intercourse with the respondent as co-respondent in the petition by stating the name, occupation and place of residence of such person or persons so far as they can be ascertained. In this case the appellant though presented his case on the ground of living in adultery has not impleaded the corespondent or respondents which is mandatory. Therefore the petition filed by the appellant is not in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the High Court of Kerala. Therefore the appeal has no merits and we dismiss the same on the ground of non-impleading of the corespondent/respondents in the petition filed before the Family Court. The dismissal of this appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant from filing a fresh petition by impleading proper persons.