The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking a decree of 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, comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, upheld the judgment of the Family Court, Mahasamund, which had dismissed the appellant’s suit for failing to establish grounds for divorce and for being hit 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. They have two children, a daughter and a son. The couple has been residing separately since September 2001.
Initially, the husband filed Civil Suit No. 24-A/2002 before the 1st Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, seeking dissolution of marriage 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. The husband subsequently filed First Appeal No. 109/2004, which was also dismissed by the High Court on June 18, 2007. The Court affirmed the findings that the husband had failed to establish the alleged grounds and noted that the wife had sustained a fracture in September 2001 after being pushed by the appellant.
Eleven years later, on December 1, 2014, the husband filed a new suit (Civil Suit No. 76A/2014) before the Family Court, Mahasamund. He reiterated that the parties had been living separately since September 2001 and claimed the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
The Family Court dismissed this second suit on December 7, 2018, holding that the application was barred by the principle of res judicata and that the grounds for divorce were not proven on merits.
Arguments
Challenging the Family Court’s decision, the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Badruddin Khan, argued that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to matrimonial offences. He contended that the lower court’s finding was perverse and urged the High Court to set aside the impugned decree.
Conversely, Mr. Animesh Verma, appearing for the respondent-wife, supported the Family Court’s judgment. He submitted that since the earlier suit on the same grounds had already been dismissed and affirmed in appeal, the present suit was rightly held to be hit by Section 11 of the CPC.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court focused on two primary 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 observed that the first suit, filed in 2002, was based on a cause of action arising in September 2001. The second suit, filed in 2014, also pleaded the same cause of action, alleging desertion from September 2001.
Referring to 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 relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry (1981), which held that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to proceedings 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.”
The Court also cited State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Company, reiterating the rule that “a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the same cause.”
The Bench noted:
“As such, the grounds of cruelty and desertion based on the cause of action that has arisen in September, 2011 have been considered and decided finally and therefore there is legal impediment in 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 plead a new or subsequent cause of action arising after the dismissal of the first appeal in 2007.
Decision
The High Court held that the Family Court was justified in dismissing the suit. On the merits of the case, the Bench concurred with the Family Court that the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not established.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, delivering 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.”
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
