D. Thomas Vs. Tara

divorce act (iv of 1869), section 11-mandatory which cannot be avoided by a husband seeking divorce on ground of adultery under section 10. ; a husband filed a suit under section 10 of the indian divorce act for a decree of divorce against his wife on the ground of adultery. the suit was decreed by the additional district judge and referred to the high court for confirmation of the decree nisi.; the question that arose for consideration was whether the suit under section 10 of the act is maintainable in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause for having excluded the adulteror as a party tot he litigation in compliance with section 11 of the act,; held, section 11(1) of the indian divorce act says that if a petition for divorce is presented by a husband on the ground of adultery, the plaintiff is obligated to make the adulteror as a party to it unless he is exempted from so doing on anyone of the grounds enumerated in section 11. in the instant case, in the relevant portion of the pleadings, the petitioner has given the names of the persons with whom the defendant is said to have been living in adultery. in fact, he would categorically admit that the defendant was leading the life of a harlot committing adultery with known and unknown persons. such being the position, the plaintiff cannot plead at this stage that the does not know the names of any person with whom the adultery has been committed. in the absence of an order excusing him form impleading the said persons as parties he cannot prosecute the original petition for divorce under section 10 of the act. the prescription in section 11 is a mandate which cannot be avoided by a husband seeking divorce on the ground of adultery.; in this view the preliminary objection raised regarding the maintainability of the suit was accepted and the suit was dismissed as not maintainable in law. - - .....to him from december 1972 and that she was guilty of adultery. in the pleadings, the plaintiff as husband has set out in the various paragraphs the illegal conduct of the defendant and her illicit connections with the various named persons. in fact, he would allege that he had to leave the residence along with his children to his uncle's house unable to bear the misconduct of the defendant. he so separated himself from her on 13-1-1973. he says that the defendant is living the life of a prostitute and would add that she is living as the mistress of one murali. in general, the case of the plaintiff-husband is that the defendant was leading an adulterous life with men known and unkonwn. he did not, however, make the adulterers as parties to this suit. the defendant's case was that she led such a life because of her husband himself and that on many occasions she refused to succumb to the invitation of the plaintiff to commit such indecent acts and that this is the reason for the suit.2. we are not inclined at this stage to go into the merits of this case because mr. a. r. ramachandran who was appointed as amicus curiae took a preliminary objection that this suit under section 10 of the act is not maintainable, since the plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause for having excluded the adulterer as a party to the litigation. he brought to our notice section 11 of the act and contends that the suit is not maintainable. learned counsel for the plaintiff, no doubt, is conscious of this position, but his case is that after 13-1-1973- the defendant was leading the life of a prostitute and that therefore there was no occasion for him to have made a particular individual as a co-defendant in the suit. ordinarily this submission would have find some force. but the pleadings in the instant case disclosed that the petitioner knew who the adulterers were. section 11(1) of the act says that if a petition for divorce is presented by a husband on the ground of adultery, the.....