JUDGMENT Petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. He filed O.P.No.309 of 2004 in the Family Court at Secunderabad under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short the Act) for divorce against the 2nd respondent. Apart from other grounds, he attributed infidelity to the 2nd respondent and made certain allegations. He impleaded the 1st respondent herein as respondent No.2 in the O.P., on the allegation that he had unholy relationship with the 151 respondent. The O.P. is pending. 2. The 151 respondent filed I.A.No.955 of 2005 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C., read with Rule 101 of Civil Rules of Practice. He contended that the petitioner herein impleaded him as the respondent in the O.P., with a mala fide intention and deliberate motive. According to him, the occasion to implead a third party in an O.P., filed under Section 13 of the Act would arise, if only any acts of adultery are attributed by one spouse to the other, in the manner specified in Rule 6 (h) (i) of the A.P. High Court Rules, framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short the Rules). He stated that no allegations of adultery were attributed to him, and in that view of the matter, his name is liable to be deleted from the array of parties. 3. Petitioner opposed the application by filing a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent took exception to the contents of the O.P., as well as the 1st respondent being added as a party. Through its order dated 30-12-2005 the Family Court, allowed the I.A. The said order is challenged in this C.R.P. 4. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific allegations are made in the O.P. against the 1st respondent, as well as two other individuals, and the said allegations constituted the basis for impleading the 1st respondent as a party to the a.p. He contends that the 1st respondent is a necessary party for the adjudication of the grounds raised in the O.P. Learned counsel points out that the Trial Court had applied the Rules, relating to the contents of pleadings to the one of impleading the parties. 5. 5. Sri Pradeep, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the necessity to implead a person other than the spouse to the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act would arise, if only any acts of adultery are attributed; and in the instant case, no such acts were pleaded, visa-vis-the 1st respondent. He contends that the Rule 6 mandates that not only an allegation as to adultery, as such, must exist, but also the particulars of the person, place, time etc., must be supplemented. Learned counsel points out that reckless and baseless allegations made against individuals, in such matters, would have the effect of wrecking families of innocent persons, and that the petitioner resorted to such practices, out of desperation. 6. Sri B Vijayasen Redddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the whole effort of the petitioner was, to cover up the illegalities committed by him, vis-a-vis his client, and several others and that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the matter from proper perspective. 7. Marriage, as an institution, has its own importance, in the lives of individuals, irrespective of the races, or religions, to which they belong. In the Indian context, it is a sacrosanct event. It brings about unity of personalities and thereafter, the couple is endowed with the duty, to continue the chain of the pedigree. For all practical purposes, the couple becomes the custodian of the family and is placed under the obligation to continue the tradition of the society, to which they belong. That is why disruption of marriage was almost a rare phenomenon, till recently. The various civilizations, particularly from the West used, and continued, to envy the sacroscence, and the endurance of the marriages in the Hindu society. However, in the recent past, the institution as such, appears to have received dents. The sad part of the matter is that the damage is emanating, mostly from the so-called affluent and educated sections of the society. 8. The marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent took place on 23-06-1997. Both of them are highly educated and hail from affluent families. Differences arose between them after some time, and from the pleadings, it appears that the starting point is some misunderstanding, in the matter of doing business. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed O.P.No.309 of 2004, seeking divorce. Both of them are highly educated and hail from affluent families. Differences arose between them after some time, and from the pleadings, it appears that the starting point is some misunderstanding, in the matter of doing business. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed O.P.No.309 of 2004, seeking divorce. He attributed infidelity to the 2nd respondent. Rule 6 of the Rules mandates that whenever adultery is attributed, by a spouse, against the other, specific acts, together with particulars of place, time, identity etc., must be furnished. The Rules also require that the person, who is said to have adulterous relations with the spouse, must also be impleaded. The petitioner impleaded the 1st respondent in the O.P. 9. The pleading in the O.P., in the context of impleading the 1st respondent reads as under: "......... That apart, respondent No.1 is also having an unholy relationship with Mr. Gautam Jana who is reported to be businessman. Not only was respondent No.1 calling Mr. Rohan and Mr. Gautam Jana home during the absence of petitioner and his father (who travels on and off), she is also reported to have visited both of them at mutually convenient places without informing petitioner or his father..... .........Though respondent No.1 initially denied having any connection with Mr. Rohan and Mr. Gautam, when petitioner confronted her with proof of recorded telephonic conversations, and billing record of mobile calls (outgoing and incoming) and SMS Activity, she had to confess about her obnoxious behaviour and conduct. However this time around she refused to relent and defied petitioner stating that he is at liberty to take any action he pleases. Instead of being remorseful and repentant she has come more aggressive and defiant........" Except this, there is no other allegation against the respondents herein, to justify the 151 respondent being added as a party. It is beneficial to extract Rule 6 (h) (i) of the Rules in this context. Rule 6(h) (i): "In the case of adultery, the specific acts of adultery and the occasion when and place where such acts were committed together with the name and address of the person with whom such adultery was committed." 10. There is an underlying purpose, to require the petitioner in an O.P., to be specific, in the manner referred to above. There is an underlying purpose, to require the petitioner in an O.P., to be specific, in the manner referred to above. Indiscriminate and irresponsible allegations, touching on the character of a person would have its own deleterious effect upon both the parties accused of adultery. The families of both the persons would be ruined, on the basis of such allegations, even before the truth or otherwise is established. Such being the deleterious effects of the allegations of adultery, the petitioner was not at all justified in dragging the 1st respondent into the controversy, on the basis of the vague and unspecific allegations made by him. The record made available to this Court discloses that the petitioner has gone even to the extent of engaging a detective, to know the activities of the 2nd respondent. He does not appear to have realized that marriage in an institution has to stand on the foundation of the belief; and once the belief becomes shaky, the edifice of marriage would collapse. 11. The learned Family Judge. Secunderabad, has discussed the matter from proper perspective and rightly directed the deletion of the 1st respondent from the array of the parties. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. 12. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.