Indian Divorce Act, 1869 — Section 55 — Appeal — Non-joinder of alleged second wife — Divorce petition dismissed — Liberty to refile — Where a petition for divorce was dismissed solely on the ground that the alleged second wife of the respondent was not impleaded as a party, Held, such defect is curable, and dismissal of the petition does not preclude a fresh filing with proper parties. Appellate Court therefore disposed of the appeal granting liberty to the wife to institute a fresh petition impleading necessary parties. Practice — Matrimonial proceedings — Joinder of parties — Where the cause of action involves allegations of bigamy, the alleged second spouse is a necessary party, and non-impleadment renders the proceedings defective; however, the defect is not fatal to the right to re-agitate the claim properly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

---

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 143 of 2025

Between:
J. Shantha Kumari, W/o. T. Pullaiah @ Chinna Pullaiah … Appellant / Petitioner

And
T. Pullaiah @ Chinna Pullaiah @ Chinna, S/o. T. Pedda Pullaiah … Respondent / Respondent

Counsel for Appellant: Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy
Counsel for Respondent: None appeared

HEADNOTES

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 — Section 55 — Appeal — Non-joinder of alleged second wife — Divorce petition dismissed — Liberty to refile —
Where a petition for divorce was dismissed solely on the ground that the alleged second wife of the respondent was not impleaded as a party, Held, such defect is curable, and dismissal of the petition does not preclude a fresh filing with proper parties. Appellate Court therefore disposed of the appeal granting liberty to the wife to institute a fresh petition impleading necessary parties.

Practice — Matrimonial proceedings — Joinder of parties —
Where the cause of action involves allegations of bigamy, the alleged second spouse is a necessary party, and non-impleadment renders the proceedings defective; however, the defect is not fatal to the right to re-agitate the claim properly.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The appellant-wife filed D.O.P. No. 8 of 2021 before the II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, seeking dissolution of marriage dated 14.08.2008 under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, alleging cruelty and desertion.

2. The petitioner averred that the respondent-husband contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the petition on 25.02.2022, observing that the alleged second wife was not made a party, relying on Radhika @ M. Lavanya v. M. Lokender, 2014 (5) ALD 340.

4. Aggrieved, the wife preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 55 of the Act.

COURT’S REASONING

• The Trial Court was correct in observing that, in a case alleging a second marriage, the alleged second wife is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication.

• However, dismissal on this technical ground does not extinguish the appellant’s right to pursue dissolution of marriage after curing the procedural defect.

• The appellant expressed readiness to implead the alleged second wife in a fresh petition.

• Accordingly, the appellate court considered it just to grant liberty rather than interfere substantively.

OPERATIVE CONCLUSION

• Civil Miscellaneous Appeal disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh divorce petition before the competent court, impleading all necessary parties.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending interlocutory applications — Closed.

— B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
— A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Date: 24.04.2025