1 CA ^^IA^^~ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rC.G.) S^sl ie F.A £.^ .M. No..^./....../:2010 ^) APPELLANT: Hemant Kumar Singh Aged about 35 Years, S/o Late Shri Chhabil Singh, R/o Village Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur,Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff/Applicant Below) ^••" ^^ •^••» ^'^' y^w" VERSUS ^•t" RESPONDENT: ^^:is^^ ?- Smt. Draupadi @ Sapna Singh (Chauhan) W/o Hemant Kumar Singh Aged about 32 Years, R/o Bhanupratappur, Salihapara, Tahsil Bhanupratappur District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) (Defendant Below) j.3 P^^Ti.y CouRTS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ^B^ffl; ®g*A^SACT, 3- ~\T ^ \p cy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR F.A. (M) No. 69 of 2010 Appellant Hemant Kumar Singh Versus Respondent Smt. Draupadi alias Sapna Singh (Chauhan) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1987 DB: Hon'ble Dr. I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri N L. Soni, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Orail ( passed on this 12th day of December, 2011 ) Per Dr. I. S . Quddusi, J. The instant appeal lias been filed by the plaintiff/husband against the impugned judgrnent and decree dated 3.05.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2006 (Hemant Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Dropadi alias Sapana Singh (Chouhan), dismissing the suit filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce. The brief facts of the case are that the rnarriage of the parties to the suit was solemnized on 6.6.2003 according to Hindu customs. The marriage of the sister (Archana) of the appellant was also solemnized with the brother (Navin) of the respondent on 6.6.2003 itself. According to the plaintiff/husband, the respondent/wife used to go to her parental house at Bhanupratappur without even asking from thc appellant and on the objection of the appellant about such a habit she H i t^ l^ ^^^1 ^^^ ^^ ^v had been threatening to the appellant in so many words. The respondent had illicit sexual relations with her brother-in-law (Bhola Singh). On 26.6.2004 the respondent went to her parental house along with her brother (Chandra Gupta) and since then she did not turn up to her matrimonial home. Whenever the appellant went to bring his wife/respondent to his house, she refused to go along with the appellant and she threatened the appellant to implicate in some false case. On 26.10.2003 the respondent/wife was caught red handed by the appellant in a compromising situation with Bhola Singh and this incident was also witnessed by four neighbours. The appellant is not father of the male child, which was born by the respondent on 29.12.2004. On the other hand the respondent/wife denied all the plaint allegations and submitted that he had conceived the child from the appellant. Her brother-in-law (Bhola Singh) already undenvent the family planning operation way back, about 10 years prior to the alleged date of incident. The appellant made a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a Maruti Car. Since the parents of the respondent did not fulfill the demand of dowry of the appellant, she was sent by the appellant with her brother. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the papers available on record and have gone through the relevant provisions of law. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit was filed by the appellant on three grounds i.e. desertion, cruelty and adultery, however learned Family Court has framed issue only in regard to adultery i.e. the issue numbers 1(A), (B) and 2 and has passed the impugned judgment deciding only the one issue i.e. on the ~'.,A"1^ ^,. ^-:,,:" ^^.^^ ^ question of adultery. He submits that Order 14 Rule 2 and Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that the trial Court should frame the issues considering that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue and thereafter should decide all the issues separately. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment, has raised an objection that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was not maintainable for want ofjoinder of the necessary party. He submits that the adulterer (Bhola Singh) has not been made a party/respondent in the suit; therefore the suit itselfwas not maintainable. 7. On perusal of the papers available on record and the evidence led by the parties, we find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Family Court after properly framing the issues and recording its finding on each issue, separately. 8. In view of the foregoing, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned judgment dated 3rd May, 2010 and remit back the matter to learned Family Court for decision afresh in view of the obser^ations made herein above. 9. Needless to mention that the parties may be allowed to amend their pleadings, file documents, get the documents verified and implead necessary party, if so required, and thereafter the decision shall be taken afresh by learned Family Court. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur