IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.600 of 2010 RITESH KUMAR @ SAICHIN KUMAR SON OF MAHENDRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMARUHAN, P.S. CHAURI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR…………………………. APPELLANT Versus JHUNI DEVI WIFE OF RITESH KUMAR DAUGHTER OF KALIDAS CHAUDHARY, P.S. CHAURI, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BELAUR, P.S. UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR, ARA……….. RESPONDENT ----------- 3 23-9-2010 Heard the parties. Appellant filed a suit for divorce before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur, Ara. That Matrimonial case no. 87 of 2007 has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal dated 19th June,2010. The appellant alleged desertion, adultery as well as cruelty against respondent-wife. Desertion, in order to be a ground for divorce must be for a minimum period of two years whereas according to the case of the appellant the wife deserted him on 4-8-2007 and the suit was filed on 25-8-2007. It may incidentally be mentioned that the marriage was solemnized on 20th April, 2006. So far as issue of adultery and cruelty is concerned, it appears from the judgment under appeal 2 that evidence of all the witnesses has been carefully considered to come to a finding that there was no merit in the allegation of adultery. The appellant in his evidence has not claimed that he ever saw his wife in compromising position with any one including one Santosh Kumar who has been named in the divorce petition in connection with alleged adultery but has not been made party in disregard of Rules under sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 framed by this Court and published in Bihar Gazette on 7th August, 1957. An issue was raised that as per The Family Court (Patna High Court) Rules 2000, in a case involving allegation of adultery, the contents of the plaint or application is required to contain only the particulars of the act together with the name and address of the alleged adulterer but there is no requirement of making the alleged adulterer a party to the plaint/application. It has further been submitted that since the Family Court Rules were framed in the year 2000 the same will be deemed to have superseded the 3 rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is made clear that the findings on the issue of adultery and cruelty have been arrived at after considering the entire evidence and materials and the same require no interference. So far as the technical ground that the alleged adulterer not being a party is concerned, we find no provision in the Family Court Act or in the Rules which may supersede or repeal any provision of the Hindu Marriage Act or Rule framed there-under. As noticed earlier, Rule 7 of the Family Court Act relates generally to the contents of the plaints/ application and not specifically to the requirement of parties, so even by implication the said rule cannot be construed as a provision impliedly repealing the relevant rule under the Hindu Marriage Act obliging the concerned party to make the alleged adulterer a party. But in the present case this sole issue raised before us is only of academic interest because as noticed above, the issue of adultery has been negatived also on merits on consideration of entire evidence and materials. 4 On consideration of evidence the learned Family Court has rightly held that the allegations of desertion and cruelty could not be proved by the appellant, the husband. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)