HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Civil Revision Petition Nos.2024,2025 and 2026 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these revisions being the same, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. These C.R.Ps. are directed against the order in I.A. Nos. 184/2008, 668 of 2007 in O.P. No.325 of 2006, dated 4.3.2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is the husband. The 1st respondent is his wife and the 2nd respondent is his mother. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 325 of 2003 against the 1st respondent. Several proceedings have been initiated by the husband and wife against each other for different reliefs and the same are pending. The only short question, which is involved in all these three revisions which are connected with each other is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings or not. The case of the petitioner is that having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the 2nd respondent, she is a necessary party to the proceedings and she herself wants to come on record. But the Court below did not accede to her request and dismissed the said application. Hence, these revisions. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the material on record, while taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made by the parties against each other, it is quite desirable for the 2nd respondent to come on record. The Court below should have given an opportunity to the 2nd respondent to come on record and to adjudicate the dispute. Under the circumstances, these revisions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The I.As. stand allowed. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J Date: 18th February, 2011 pnb