Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Ram Kumar alias Ramender Kumar, appellant, who is the husband of Smt. Raksha alias Galabo, respondent, has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the grounds of cruelty, desertion, adultery and unsound mind of the respondent, has been dismissed.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village Isherheri, District Kurukshetra on 09.05.1983. Both the parties resided together as husband and wife and cohabited with each other in Village Manka, District Ambala. From this wed-lock, a female child was born, who is at present 11 years old. After 13 years of the marriage, the husband filed the divorce petition in the year 1996 alleging therein that the' respondent-wife is a quarrel some lady and she quarrels with the appellant and his family members over trivial. She did not take bath and used to wear dirty clothes. Whenever she was asked to do the needful, she used to call bad names to the appellant and his family members. Whenever any relative visits the house of the appellant, the respondent refused to serve them with tea or meals. It was further alleged that the respondent has left the matrimonial home of the appellant without any reasonable excuse and she deliberately deserted the appellant. It was also alleged that the respondent is mentally retarded and is of unsound mind lady. It has also been pleaded that the elder brother of the respondent is also mentally retarded and is of unsound mind. Similarly, the female child, who was born to this wedlock, is mentally retailed. It was also pleaded that the respondent has illicit relations with some other person, whose name has not been disclosed in the petition nor he was impleaded as a party.
3. The respondent contested the aforesaid divorce petition by denying all the allegations levelled in the petition. It was pleaded by her that she is a simpleton rustic lady and the appellant is bent upon to get rid of her by hook or crook. It was further pleaded by her that the appellant gave her such medicines which effected her mind and she was taken by her father-in-law to Delhi, where he committed rape on her in a hotel. It was also pleaded that father of the appellant is having an evil eye on the respondent and in these circumstances; it is not possible for her to remain in the house of the appellant, who always treated her with cruelty.
4. The learned Additional District Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant, while holding that the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent have not been proved.
5. Shri Arun Palli, learned counsel for the appellant, white assailing the judgment passed by the learned trial court, has submitted that the respondent has definitely committed; cruelty by levelling false allegations against the appellant and his father. While referring to the decision of this Court in Smt. Madhu Rani alias Madhu Bala v. Tarsem Lal Verma, 1980 All India Hindu Law Reporter 710, Smt. Parvati v. Prem Singh, 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 83 (Rajasthan) and Manjit Kaur v. Avtar Singh, 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 268 (P&H;), learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the wife levels false allegations against the character of her husband and his family members, it amounts to cruelty on the part of the wife. He submitted that in the present case, the allegations of the respondent that the appellant was having illicit relations with widow of cousin of the appellant, and her father-in-law has raped her have not been established by her, therefore, the same amounts to false allegations. In view of that, the learned trial court should have passed the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant on the ground of cruelty.
6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and am unable to accept the same. Learned Additional District Judge has not held that the aforesaid allegations levelled by the respondent against the appellant were false. In this regard, learned trial court has held as under:
'' Abdul Hamid, RW5, has also stated that Ram Kumar petitioner was having illicit relations with the wife of his cousin and at this juncture, it may be mentioned that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. On one hand, the petitioner is having illicit connection with the wife of his cousin, as stated by Abdul Hamid, RW5, and also as stated by the respondent. Then it has also transpired that father of the petitioner has committed rape with the respondent. Thus, these allegations made by the respondent cannot be said to be scandalous, rather the same are substantiated by cogent evidence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefits of his own wrong.'
7. In view of the aforesaid findings, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent were false. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that these allegations levelled by the respondent amount to cruelty against the appellant. The aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it has been established on record that the respondent was having illicit relations with some body else as she has admitted that female child was born to her in 1995, whereas she left the house of the appellant in January, 1992. Therefore, this fact itself establishes that the respondent was having illicit relations with some body else. I also do not find any force in this contention of learned counsel for the appellant, because as per the case of the respondent she left the matrimonial home of the appellant in December, 1994. As such, it cannot be said that the female child born to her was not of the appellant. Even otherwise, the prayer of the appellant for divorce on the ground of adultery cannot be allowed as he has not disclosed the name of the person with whom the respondent is having illicit relations nor such person has been made party in the petition filed by him. Rule 10 of the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956 provides that if a petition is presented by husband for divorce on the ground of adultery, then he is required to implead the alleged adulator, a co-respondent. It has been held in Parvati v. Shiv Ram and Anr., 1988 Civil Court Cases 539 (H.P.) and Mirapala Venkataramana v. Mirapala Peddiraga, 11(2000) Divorce and Matrimonial Cases 40 that in a petition for divorce field by the husband on the ground of adultery, it is necessary for the petitioner to implead the alleged adultator as co-respondent. In case the husband has not impleaded the alleged adultator, the petition filed by him is not maintainable being non-joining of the necessary party. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact also, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the petition for divorce filed by the appellant as the alleged adultator was neither named nor impleaded as a respondent in the petition.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion,. I find no merit in the instant appeal filed bythe appellant. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.