Case title:
S v. V
Bench:
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
SUBJECT:
The respondent had already filed a petition for divorce on the grounds for cruelty which was dismissed by the court. After a while he again filed a divorce petition on the grounds of continuous cruelty and desertion which was contended to be barred by res-judicata. Court held that it is not barred.
IMPORTANT PROVISION:
Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
The provision of res judicata states that no court shall try any suit or issue if the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and under the same title and has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
This rule is based on the principle of equity and good conscience as the part who has once succeeded on an issue should not be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings. The object is that there should be an end to litigation.
OVERVIEW:
Originally, the husband (respondent) filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and the wife (petitioner) at the same time, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the family court dismissed the divorce petition and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
The respondent was aggrieved and preferred an appeal against the decision. The appellate court allowed both the appeals and dismissed the petition for restitution and also granted divorce.
The petitioner therefore, filed a second appeal before the High Court of Madras wherein the court reversed the findings of appellate court and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights while dismissing the divorce petition.
Thereafter, the respondent filed another petition for divorce on fresh cause of action and on different grounds (desertion and continuous cruelty with regard to subsequent events).
The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 11 of C.P.C. to dismiss the petition on the ground that res judicata will be applicable. The court below dismissed this petition and hence, the petitioner filed this present Civil Revision Petition.
ISSUES RAISED:
Whether the application for divorce is barred by Section 11 i.e. principle of Res Judicata?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:
The counsel for petitioner submitted that the petition for divorce is hit by res judicata and is a clear abuse of process of law. Petitioner contended that since the respondent had already filed divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and it was dismissed by this court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The counsel for respondent contended that after dismissal of divorce petition, the petitioner had continuously harassed respondent and his family and hence the respondent has to file this divorce petition on the ground that continuous cruelty has been done to him and also that he was deserted for a long period.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
The court dismissed the petition holding that the decision of lower court is right and there is no infirmity in the same. The court also directed the court to dispose of the divorce petitioner within 6 months.
It was held that in the present case the cause of action is different and therefore this divorce petition is maintainable and the principle of res judicata under section 11 of C.P.C is not applied.
The court reasoned that although the grounds of this divorce are same as before, no bar of res-judicata could apply as long as the cause of action for the subsequent proceeding is different.
The court defined the cause of action and gave distinction between cause of action and grounds of a case. And ultimately held that- “the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery is not precluded from suing again for dissolution on the same grounds, provided the relief is founded on new facts”
Therefore, it was held that when the cause of action is of continuing or recurring nature, the subsequent litigation of divorce brought on the same grounds will not be barred by res judicata.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, the court had observed that the grounds for dissolution of marriage is of a continuous nature and thus, any subsequent petition filed for divorce could be considered by the courts and are not barred by the principle of res judicata. It further stated that the basis for filing the petition under res judicata must be the same as that of the prior petition but however in this case, it was decided that the divorce petition is maintainable and is not precluded by the principle of res judicata.
