The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that an additional issue concerning a husband’s alleged adultery cannot be framed in a divorce proceeding initiated by him, especially when the wife has not filed a counter-claim for divorce on that ground. A division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi dismissed an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Family Court order that had rejected her application to frame such an additional issue.
The appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, contested the order dated July 7, 2025, by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-8, Lucknow. The Family Court had dismissed the appellant-wife’s application under Order XIV Rules 1-5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in a divorce petition filed by her husband.
Background of the Case
The legal dispute began when the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition against the appellant-wife on May 19, 2015, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Subsequently, the husband amended his petition to include allegations that his wife was living in adultery with a third party, who was then impleaded in the case.
This third party, in his objections dated December 5, 2015, denied the allegations and claimed that it was the husband who was in an adulterous relationship with another woman. He requested that his name be deleted from the proceedings, stating he had been unnecessarily dragged into the couple’s dispute. Following this, the trial court, through orders on August 31, 2016, and November 26, 2016, directed the deletion of the third party’s name, noting that no relief had been sought against him. However, he was later re-impleaded on August 13, 2024, through an application by the husband.
The Family Court framed issues for trial on January 3, 2017, focusing on cruelty and the wife’s alleged adultery. After eight years, with the evidence stage completed, the wife filed an application on May 14, 2025, requesting the framing of an additional issue regarding her husband’s alleged adultery, based on the averments made by the third party in his 2015 objection. The Family Court rejected this application on July 7, 2025, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the Family Court ignored a material fact that came to light through the objections of the third party. He contended that a person who is himself living in adultery cannot seek a divorce on the same grounds against his spouse. It was submitted that not framing an additional issue on the husband’s alleged adultery would cause “serious prejudice” to the appellant and that the matter went to the “very root of the matter.”
Conversely, counsel for the respondent-husband argued that the wife’s application was a “delaying tactic” as the divorce case had been pending since 2015. He pointed out that the issues were framed in 2017 without any objection from the wife and her application came only after the evidence stage was over. He asserted that an additional issue cannot be framed based on the pleadings of a third party, and significantly, the wife had never filed a counter-claim for divorce alleging adultery against her husband. He also highlighted that the wife had filed a separate case for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which contradicted her current plea.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, in its judgment, analyzed the provisions of Order XIV of the CPC, which governs the framing of issues. The Court observed that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.
The bench held that the husband’s alleged relationship with another woman was not the subject matter of the divorce petition he had filed. The judgment emphasized the absence of a counter-claim from the wife. The Court noted that while the wife disputed the husband’s right to seek divorce on the grounds of adultery by alleging he was also adulterous, this could have been a ground for her to seek dissolution of marriage. However, the Court observed, “in the present case, she has neither instituted a petition for divorce nor filed any Counter-Claim to that effect. Instead, she has instituted a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is pending before the Family Court, Lucknow.”
The Court concluded that since the husband’s alleged adultery was not an issue for adjudication in the pending divorce proceedings initiated by him, the Family Court was correct in rejecting the wife’s application. The judgment read, “When the case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been instituted by the husband wherein allegation of adultery has been levelled against the wife, so the determination of allegation of adultery against the husband shall be of no consequence in the instant case.”
Finding no reason to interfere, the High Court affirmed the Family Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
