J.G. Chitre, J.
1. This appeal is assailing the order which has been passed by IXth Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Court), Indore dated 17.11.1983 by which he permitted respondent No. 2 Girjashankar Mishra s/o Sadashiv Mishra, the father of present appellant Ranjana to contest as a party in the matter of Matrimonial Petition No. 535 of 1991.
2. The marriage between appellant Ranjana and respondent No. 1 Taral Munshi was solemized on 8.5.1989 at Indore by Hindu religious rites. Thereafter both of them lived together for a considerable period. They were unable to adjust themselves in the said matrimonial tie and, therefore, a petition in view of provisions of Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Hindu Marriage Act for convenience) came to be filed in the Matrimonial Court by appellant Ranjana against respondent No. 1 Taral Munshi. She prayed for a decree of divorce and dissolution of said matrimonial tie. Thereafter both, Ranjana and Taral Munshi filed an application on 25.2.1993 under Section 13(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining a decree of divorce by consent. When the said application was pending before the Court, respondent No. 2 Girjashankar Mishra, father of present appellant Ranjana, filed an application before the said Court making request that he be impleaded as party in the said matrimonial petition. The Court below allowed it and that order is being assailed in this appeal.
3. Mr. Mev, learned Counsel for appellant submitted that both Ranjana and Taral Munshi are sufficiently educated persons. He submitted that respondent Taral happens to be an officer serving in public sector company and present appellant Ranjana is serving in bank. He submitted that when they had moved an application in view of provisions of Section 13(B) of the Act and that was being considered by the Matrimonial Court, respondent No. 2 did not have any locus standi in contesting said matrimonial petition. He submitted, the impugned order be set aside as improper, incorrect and illegal.
4. Mr. V.R. Purohit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 Taral Munshi, submitted that the submissions made by Mr. Mev are correct in respect of marriage etc. He also submitted that such an application was filed by both Ranjana and Taral Munshi. He did not say anything about the merit or de-merit of the impugned order.
5. Mr. V.K. Dube, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 vehemently justified the impugned order.
6. In view of the arguments and material on record it is to be decided whether the impugned order is correct, proper and legal. When a matrimonial petition has been filed by husband and wife for a decree in of provisions of Section 13(B), the father of either wife or husband does not have any locus standi in the said matrimonial petition unless the spouses or any one of them is minor, lunatic or of unsound mind. The contest is between the spouses. When the husband and wife are well-educated and occupying important posts in their occupations, I do not think that they need intervention of the father of any one of them. The father of others spouse does not have a legal locus standi in such petitions when the spouses are or either of them claiming a decree of dissolution of marriage or divorce. The learned Judge of Matrimonial Court did not consider this important aspect of the matter and, therefore, landed in obvious error of passing such an order which cannot be sustained in view of provisions of Hindu Marriage Act.
7. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Matrimonial Court on 25.7.1995 at 11.30 a.m. Keeping in view the relations between respondent No. 2 and the appellant, no order as to costs.