Gertrude Stevenson vs G.C. Stevenson

Sale, J.—I am clearly of opinion that this application ought to be granted. The Petitioner in the suit is the wife, and the husband in his answer charges the wife with adultery with the Applicant, Michael Peter Masson, who is seeking to intervene, and the husband, the Respondent, asks in his answer that his marriage with the Petitioner may be dissolved and that he may have such further relief as the case may require. Sec. 15 of the Indian Divorce Act permits the Respondent to obtain in the suit the same relief which he would have been entitled to if he had himself presented his petition, and sec. 11 provides that before a petition by a husband seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground of the wife''s adultery can be granted, he is bound to make the alleged adulterer a party to the suit. Taking these two sections together I think the Legislature intended that the Respondent should be entitled to bring before the Court the parties whose presence is necessary to entitle him to the relief he seeks. If then the Respondent is entitled to apply to have the person he charges with committing adultery with his wife made a party to the suit, it would seem to follow that the person so charged may also apply to intervene.

The rule will be made absolute and the costs will be reserved.

Mr. Pugh asks for his costs and submits he is entitled to them. I reserve the costs. I ought to add that I think the case of Wheeler v. Wheeler & Rhodes 14 P. D. 154 is ample authority for the order I make.