Hyderabad: Justice Laxminarayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court held that in a petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery, it is necessary to make the alleged adulterer a party to the case. The judge was dealing with a matter in which the husband sought divorce alleging adultery by his wife and sought to implead the person with whom she was allegedly having an affair to the divorce proceedings on the file of the Additional Family Court in Hyderabad. When the family court rejected his application, he moved the High Court. According to the averments in the divorce petition, the husband received a call from a third party stating that he was in love with the respondent. The respondent confessed to a past relationship. On an assurance that it was a relationship from the past, the husband proceeded to marry his wife. However, the petitioner found that his wife was still in touch with the third party and therefore sought his impleadment in the divorce petition. The wife denied the allegations. "It is to be noted that since the finding of adultery would adversely affect the adulterer, opportunity should be given to him to defend himself and to disprove the claim of adultery and the said adulterer should be arrayed in the proceedings, which would help the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the controversy," the judge said. He added, "Further, as per Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, joinder of alleged adulterer as a co-respondent in a case filed seeking divorce on the ground of adultery is mandatory."
Contempt against MAUD official
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court faulted the principal secretary of the municipal administration and urban development (MAUD) department and the GHMC commissioner for failing to comply with the directions passed earlier in a writ plea and afforded a final opportunity to comply with the same. The judge took on file a contempt case filed by Uma Shanker, who worked as a typist with the respondents since 1988. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had failed to comply with the earlier orders in which the judge had directed the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of regularisation to the petitioner and grant consequential pensionary benefits. The judge on the earlier occasion while hearing the present contempt case had directed the principal secretary to appear before the court personally. Despite orders, the judge remarked, the official had neither appeared nor filed any petition to dispense with his appearance. The judge said that no petition was filed seeking an extension of time to comply with the orders. Counsel for the respondent authorities informed the judge that the principal secretary was on leave and travelling abroad. The judge directed the respondent authorities to comply with the orders passed earlier as a final chance and posted the matter for submission of a compliance report.
Contempt notice to panchayat raj official
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the commissioner of panchayat raj and rural development in a contempt case pertaining to selections for the post of junior panchayat secretary. The judge took on file a contempt case filed by student A. Atul Kumar and two others. The petitioners allege that the respondent failed to comply with the orders passed by the court earlier. The judge had earlier in a writ plea directed the respondent to conclude the final selection process for the post, pursuant to a notification dated September 16, 2021, within six weeks. The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the orders wantonly and was liable to be punished for contempt.
HC takes on file plea on health varsity
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the action of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) and others, in not permitting a medical student to appear in postgraduate MD paediatrics regular exam. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Dr Banoth Sadhana, a MD paediatrics student of the university. The petitioner alleged that the university was not permitting the petitioner to pay the examination fee for the theory and final examinations of her course, including clinical examinations and viva, as she had allegedly availed excess maternity leave for 91 days. The judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter after four weeks.
