JUDGMENT : (Goutam Bhaduri, J.) : 1. Heard. 2. Learned Counsel for both the parties did not object hearing of the case through live streaming. 3. The instant Appeal is filed by the Appellant/wife against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2021 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg in Civil Suit No.352/2018 whereby, prayer for a decree of divorce by the husband, was granted primarily on the ground of adultery. The Appellant/wife is in Appeal before this Court. 4.(i) Brief facts of the case are that the parties were married on 17.04.2006 and out of the wed lock, three children were born on 23.06.2008, 23.01.2011 and 15.10.2014. According to the husband, after 2014, the differences started cropping up between them and on trivial issues, the Appellant/wife used to get enraged. On 26.12.2014, the Appellant/wife went away with her son namely Kudleep and on enquiry, it was revealed that she and one Dhal Singh Kurre were living as wife and husband and the efforts of the Respondent/husband to settle the dispute by bringing her back proved to be futile. Subsequently, the Appellant/wife came back with the son and started living with the Respondent/husband. After 2-3 months, she again went back in the company of Dhal Singh Kurre and when she was tried to be contacted over the phone, she replied and stated not to make any effort to search her. This state of affair continued and on 14.01.2017, a report was made by the Respondent/husband in the police station stating that his wife is living along with Dhal Singh Kurre. A conciliation proceeding took place between the parties in the police station wherein, she was advised to stay along with her husband but the same did not materialize. (ii) Subsequently, the Appellant/wife tried to commit suicide and was hospitalized and after getting discharged, she started living at her parental house. The Respondent/husband alleges that on and off, the Appellant/wife used to stay with Dhal Singh Kurre and in such course, she once came back and forcefully tried to enter his house and extended threat to him that if she is not allowed to stay with him, then his entire family would be inculpated in some case. The Respondent/husband alleges that on and off, the Appellant/wife used to stay with Dhal Singh Kurre and in such course, she once came back and forcefully tried to enter his house and extended threat to him that if she is not allowed to stay with him, then his entire family would be inculpated in some case. The Respondent/husband stated that the conciliation between them did not materialize and both of them were living separately since 2015 and because of the indecent behaviour of the Appellant/wife, his image before the society has completely ruined and the people used to laugh at him. The Respondent/husband, therefore, in these circumstances, preferred a divorce Petition before the Court to arrest any untoward incident in future. 5. The Appellant/wife in her reply, denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that the Respondent/husband used to drink a lot and in a state of intoxication, used to torture her and also demanded money, which could not be fulfilled by her. She further stated that under these circumstances, since she had no other means to survive, therefore, she went to stay at her parental house and because of such mental torture, she tried to commit suicide by consuming phenol and thereafter, when she was discharged from the hospital, she was staying at her parental house. She further stated that the Respondent/husband never turned up to take her back with him but she always wanted to stay with him. 6. On the pleading of the parties, the learned Family Court framed the issue on adultery and found it to be proved, thereby, a decree of dissolution of marriage was passed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal by the wife. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the adulterer was not made a party in the suit and placed reliance on Shilpa Hardaha vs Praveen Kachhwaha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1392 to submit that in such case, in the matrimonial dispute, the High Court held that the adulterer is a necessary party. She also refers to Rule 366 of High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 to submit that according to the said Rule, when the Petition of divorce is on the ground of adultery, the name and address of the person or persons with whom these acts were committed, would be a necessary party, therefore, the suit itself was defective. She also refers to Rule 366 of High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 to submit that according to the said Rule, when the Petition of divorce is on the ground of adultery, the name and address of the person or persons with whom these acts were committed, would be a necessary party, therefore, the suit itself was defective. She further submits that the evidence of the parties further goes to show that the Appellant/wife was subjected to torture, as such, she started living separately at her parental house and the identity of J. Venu (PW-2), who is the wife of Dhal Singh Kurre, with whom it is stated that the Appellant/wife was living in adultery, has not been established, therefore, that part of evidence is completely foreign. She further submits that in these circumstances of the case, only an oral statement has been made about the adultery, which could not have been accepted, thereby, a faulty finding has been arrived at by the Court below, which may be set aside and prays that the Appeal may be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/husband submits that the ground of non-joinder of necessary party was not taken before the trial Court. He further submits that even when the Appeal was filed, he could have been made a party. He further submits that the statement of J. Venu (PW-2), who is wife of the adulterer clearly proves the fact that the Appellant/wife is living in adultery with the husband of J. Venu (PW-2). Consequently, her evidence cannot be discarded. He further submits that the Respondent/husband, during the trial also, established the fact that he, the Appellant/wife and Dhal Singh Kurre were called to the Police Station, which goes to prove the nature of evidence. Consequently, the finding which has been arrived at by the Court below is well merited and does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 10. The Petition was filed by the Respondent/husband seeking divorce primarily on the ground of adultery. Normally, according to the rules, the adulterer appears to be a necessary party and Shilpa Hardaha vs Praveen Kachhwaha (supra) also lays down the same proposition. However, perusal of all the order sheets of the Court below would show that such objection was never taken by the Appellant/wife at the first instance. Normally, according to the rules, the adulterer appears to be a necessary party and Shilpa Hardaha vs Praveen Kachhwaha (supra) also lays down the same proposition. However, perusal of all the order sheets of the Court below would show that such objection was never taken by the Appellant/wife at the first instance. If such objection was not taken at the first instance, the same shall be deemed to have been waived under Order 1 Rule 13 CPC, which reads as follows:- “Objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder.- All objections on the ground of non -joinder or misjoinder of parties shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen, and any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived.” 11. According to the aforesaid Rules, if such objection has not been taken, the same shall be deemed to have been waived. We are further fortified by the principles laid down in the matter of Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Ors reported in AIR 1976 SC 2335 wherein, it was held that the plea pertains to domain of the frame of the suit as if the suit is bad for non-joinder of other Plaintiffs. Such a plea should have been raised and if it is not done, then it would be deemed to have been waived of. Similar view has been followed in the matter of State of UP vs. Ram Swarup Saroj reported in AIR 2000 SC 1097 wherein, at para-9, the Court held as under:- “9. We find none of the pleas raised before this Court was raised by the appellant before the High Court. A plea as to non-joinder of a party cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court if the same was not taken before the High Court and has not occasioned a failure of justice. It is pertinent to note that the High Court of Uttar Pradesh though aware of the impugned judgment delivered by the Division Bench has not chosen to file an appeal there against. It is pertinent to note that the High Court of Uttar Pradesh though aware of the impugned judgment delivered by the Division Bench has not chosen to file an appeal there against. Before us also the appellant - State of U.P. has not placed any material on record to show how an inference as to failure of justice can be drawn because of non-joinder of High Court as party in the writ petition. The first plea of the appellant therefore fails.” 12. The aforesaid proposition was also laid down by the High Court of Calcutta in the matter of Chandrakanto Goswami vs. Ram Mohini Debi and Ors reported in AIR 1956 Calcutta 577 wherein, it was held that the plea of defect of parties cannot be given effect to at the stage of Appeal. Consequently, after going through the principles laid down in the aforesaid two cases and order sheets of this case, we are of the view that the Appellant/wife cannot be permitted to challenge the decree which must stand notwithstanding defect of parties, if any, and the plea of non-joinder or defect of parties, however, strong on the merits, cannot be of any practical advantage to the Appellant/wife. Therefore, we would follow the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court as stated supra and accordingly hold that when non-joinder of the adulterer was not raised during entire trial at the appellate stage, it could not have been raised for the first time and objection having not been raised, it would be deemed to have been waived under Order 1 Rule 13 CPC. 13. Now, the question is with respect to the evidence of adultery. The Respondent/husband, in his statement, had categorically deposed that after the marriage, the Appellant/wife stayed with one Dhal Singh Kurre for 2 years. Thereafter, she came back to him and again went back for which, a report was made by him and they were called at Police Station, Khursipar on 14.01.2017. The Respondent/husband, in his statement, had categorically deposed that after the marriage, the Appellant/wife stayed with one Dhal Singh Kurre for 2 years. Thereafter, she came back to him and again went back for which, a report was made by him and they were called at Police Station, Khursipar on 14.01.2017. The Appellant/wife has placed on record the proceeding of the police station filed as Ex.P-3(C) wherein, the police though refused to take cognizance of it being a non-cognizable offence under Section 155 Cr.P.C, but the fact remains that the contents written in it establish that the Appellant/wife went in the company of Dhal Singh Kurre and stayed with him for a period of two years and when she wanted to go back to the Respondent/husband’s place, a resistance was made upon which, such report was filed. 14. Another report dated 09.04.2018 filed as Ex.P-4(C) is also about the recording of the facts of non-cognizable offence under Section 155 of Cr.P.C, which also shows the fact that the Appellant/ wife stayed in the company of Dhal Singh for a period of two years and again came back and thereafter as the same behavior continued, therefore, the Respondent/husband was fed up with the character of his wife. The Report (Ex.P-5) made to the Police Superintendent by the Respondent/husband bearing endorsement of the same is on record which shows the factual scenario that in 2014, the Appellant/wife eloped with Dhal Singh Kurre and stayed with him for two years and thereafter, some family meeting took place whereby, she came back to the company of Respondent/husband and after 3 months, again, she eloped with Dhal Singh Kurre in the month of January 2017. 15. When a report was made and they were called, the Appellant/ wife disclosed that she does not want to stay along with the Respondent/husband. Such counselling proceeding dated 20.01.2017 has been placed on record as Ex.P-10(C), which shows that the Appellant/wife was residing with Dhal Singh Kurre, however, the Respondent/husband states that he wants to take her back. In the said proceeding, Dhal Singh Kurrey was also present and stated that he does not want to keep the Appellant/wife along with him. This state of affair that the Respondent/husband, the Appellant/wife and the third party namely Dhal Singh Kurre, the adulterer were also present goes to show the factum of inter se relation. In the said proceeding, Dhal Singh Kurrey was also present and stated that he does not want to keep the Appellant/wife along with him. This state of affair that the Respondent/husband, the Appellant/wife and the third party namely Dhal Singh Kurre, the adulterer were also present goes to show the factum of inter se relation. We did not find any logic as to why unnecessarily Dhal Singh Kurre being a third party having no knowledge of the identity of the persons was called to settle the issue and he made a statement that he does not want to keep the Appellant with him further. This state of affair would goes to show that the Appellant/wife was in the company of Dhal Sigh Kurre and was leading an adulterous life. 16. The statement of J. Venu (PW-2) is on record and her Adhaar Card is filed as Ex.P-1C. It was stated by her that she is Renu Kurre, wife of Dhal Singh Kurre. Though her identity has been tried to be attacked by the Appellant/wife, but in the cross-examination, when such facts were tried to be eliminated, she disowned the same. In the affidavit filed by her, it was stated that she was married to Dhal Singh Kurre in the month of July 2009 and out of the said marriage, 2 children were born but subsequently, he came in contact with the Appellant/wife and left her and children in lurch and both the Appellant/wife and Dhal Singh Kurre started living in a separate residence. She further stated that when she confronted with her husband, she was subjected to assault. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited and when Aadhar Card Ex.P-1(C) was confronted, the same was found belonging to J Venu (PW-2) wherein, her identity was established as the wife of Dhal Singh Kurre. The said statement, therefore, would be admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, which speaks about the opinion on the relationship which purports that the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, would be a relevant fact. 17. 17. Consequently, the statement of J. Venu (PW-2) whose identity was established to be the wife of Dhal Singh Kurre, the adulterer that the Appellant/wife and the Respondent/husband were in relation and living together would be a relevant fact to the issue in hand. 18. Coming back to the statement of the Appellant/wife, she stated therein that she was subjected to mental torture as such, she was forced to leave the company of her husband. She admits therein the fact that she tried to commit suicide by consuming phenol but the allegation has been passed on to her husband that because of mental torture, she tried to do it. In her examination-in-chief, she further admits that because of such report, she was called to police station, therefore, her presence before the police, which has been proved by the Respondent/husband is corroborated and she admits the fact that she again wanted to stay back and entered into the house of her husband, which was objected by the local residents. 19. This course of conduct of the Appellant/wife when read along with the report made by the Respondent/husband leads to prove that the Appellant/wife was in the company of a person other than her husband and the report which was made by the Respondent/husband at a different point of time and the counseling which took place in the police station have not been denied. 20. Consequently, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.352/2018 does not call for any interference and the same is hereby affirmed. 21. Resultantly, the Appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.