Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a husband’s divorce appeal, ruling that a second petition on identical grounds is barred by res judicata. Upholding the Mahasamund Family Court order, the Bench cited Section 11 CPC and lack of proven grounds clearly.
CHHATTISGARH: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an appeal from a husband seeking a divorce, affirming that a second petition based on the same cause of action and grounds previously adjudicated is barred by the principle of res judicata.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, upheld the Family Court’s decision in Mahasamund, which rejected the appellant’s divorce petition for failing to prove grounds and for being prohibited by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Case Background
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on April 29, 1993, in Bilaspur and have two children, a daughter and a son. They have been living separately since September 2001. Initially, the husband filed Civil Suit No. 24-A/2002 before the 1st Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, seeking a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
This suit was dismissed on April 24, 2004. He then filed First Appeal No. 109/2004, which the High Court dismissed on June 18, 2007, reaffirming that the husband failed to establish the grounds and noting that the wife sustained a fracture in September 2001 after being pushed by him.
Eleven years later, on December 1, 2014, the husband filed a new suit (Civil Suit No. 76A/2014) in the Family Court, Mahasamund, reiterating that the couple had been living separately since September 2001 and claiming that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Family Court dismissed this second suit on December 7, 2018, stating that the application was barred by res judicata and that the divorce grounds were not proven on their merits.
Arguments
Challenging the Family Court’s ruling, the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Badruddin Khan, argued that the principle of res judicata does not apply to matrimonial offenses. He claimed the lower court’s decision was flawed and requested the High Court to overturn the decree.
In contrast, Mr. Animesh Verma, representing the respondent-wife, supported the Family Court’s judgment, asserting that since the previous suit on the same grounds had already been dismissed and upheld on appeal, the current suit was rightly barred by Section 11 of the CPC.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court focused on two main questions: whether the suit was barred by res judicata and whether the appellant was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Bench noted that the first suit filed in 2002 was based on a cause of action that arose in September 2001.
The second suit filed in 2014 also pleaded the same cause of action, claiming desertion from September 2001. Citing Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Court clarified that the provisions of the CPC apply to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry (1981), which established that the doctrine of res judicata applies to cases under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench quoted the Supreme Court’s observation:
“It is difficult to countenance the suggestion that the doctrine of res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code, which partakes of the character of substantive law, is not applicable to proceedings under the Act.”
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court: Taunting Husband for Joblessness is Cruelty, Grants Divorce
The Court also referenced State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Company, reiterating that “a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the same cause.”
The Bench concluded,
“As such, the grounds of cruelty and desertion based on the cause of action that has arisen in September 2001 have been considered and decided finally, and therefore there is a legal impediment in the shape of Section 11 of the Code for processing and deciding the second suit relating to cruelty and desertion on the principle of res judicata.”
The Court emphasized that the appellant did not present a new or subsequent cause of action that arose after the dismissal of the first appeal in 2007.
The High Court determined that the Family Court acted justifiably in dismissing the suit. On the merits, the Bench agreed with the Family Court that the claims of cruelty and desertion had not been substantiated.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, who delivered the judgment, stated:
“The principle of res judicata would apply to proceeding under Section 11 of the Code… and further, the principle of res judicata has rightly been pressed into service by the respondent herein/wife and rightly applied by the Family Court.”
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
CASE TITLE: Udayram Basant Vs Smt. Jyoti
READ ATTACHMENT: