Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dr. Sumedha Mengi vs Dr. Shabab Lalit Angurana on 20 December, 2024
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
87
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CR No. 51/2024
Dr. Sumedha Mengi .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Mandeep Reen, Adv.
vs
Dr. Shabab Lalit Angurana ..... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
20.12.2024
ORAL:
1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated
14.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Jammu.
2. Facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent herein
had filed petition before the court below against the petitioner herein for
dissolution of marriage under and in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
3. During the pendency of said petition, the respondent herein filed an
application for amendment of the same for impleadment of one Anuj
Gupta S/o. Sh. Ram Murti Gupta, Office Address Atulya Health Care Pvt.
Ltd. SCO 112-113, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C Chandigarh 160018 as a
party respondent in the said petition on the premise that the said person is
a necessary party being allegedly co-adulterer with the petitioner herein
which application came to be allowed by the court below directing the
2
CR No. 51/2024
impleadment of the aforesaid Anuj Gupta as party respondent in the
petition.
4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds
urged in the instant petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent herein
in the divorce petition did not raise any plea of adultery against the
petitioner herein and as such, impleadment of the person alleged to be co-
adulterer was not required to be impleaded. However, the said plea of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be factually incorrect, in that
a specific plea in this regard has been raised by the respondent herein in
the divorce petition in regard to the alleged adultery of the petitioner
herein.
Under these circumstances, it cannot but be said that the person impleaded
is not either a necessary or a proper party in the divorce petition.
6. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the court below otherwise also
would reveal that the grounds urged by the petitioner herein in the instant
petition have had been urged before the court below as well while
opposing the impleadment application and the same stands seemingly well
considered by the court below, besides the principles and position of law
laid down by various courts in this regard.
The court below seemingly has not committed any illegality and
perversity in passing the impugned order which thus, does not call for any
interference.
3
CR No. 51/2024
The judgment of the High Court of Delhi relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in support of her case, tilted as Shivi Bansal vs
Gaurav Bansal reported in 2024 DHC 5541-DB does not lend any
support to the case of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid analysis.
7. Viewed thus, the instant petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
Jammu
20.12.2024
Rakesh
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
4
CR No. 51/2024
Rakesh Kumar
2024.12.23 13:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document