Res judicata in maintenence case 125 crpc

@ querist  for criminal cases it is called double jeopardy you should submit the certified copy of case decided earlier,in the court hearing same case later.You will need to explicitly raise the plea of double jeopardy.

regards

ASHOK

Thanks for the speedy comment.

I have SCC order https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/432335/ for res judicata and its reported item https://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=99999999&do_pdf=1&id=20745

Will it be possible for you to refer some case orders?

'Res' in Latin means thing a 'Judicata' means already decided. This rule operates as a bar to the trial of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action between the same parties. Its basic purpose is - "One suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute". The rule of 'res judicata' does not depend upon the correctness or the incorrectness of the former decision. It is a principle of law by which a matter which has been litigated cannot be re-litigated between the same parties. This is known as the rule of "res judicata" (thing decided).

"Res judicata pro veritate accipitur" is the full maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to mere "res judicata". Section 11 contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment, which is based partly on the maxim of Roman Jurisprudence "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it concerns the State that there be an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una at eadem causa" (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause). The section does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but operates as a bar to the trial of the suit or issue, if the matter in the suit was directly and substantially in issue (and finally decided) in the previous suit between the same parties litigating under the same title in a court, competent to try the subsequent suit in which such issue has been raised. The principle of res judicata is based on the need to give finality and certainty to judicial decisions. The principle of res judicata includes constructive res judicata also.

Following are the references and citations:

JUDGMENT & ORDER - trp.nic.in

tsu.trp.nic.in/highcourtjudgement/JobDet.aspx?JobID=243‎

Subhash Mandal vs Smt. Tripti Mandal on 20 December, 2011

indiankanoon.org/doc/77337883/‎

https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/same-relief-maintenancecannot-be-asked-in-two-difference-cases-in-two-different-courts/

Mr. Sufferer has given a detailed information on the subject,however Mr. Ashok is right that in criminal cases, the principle of double jeopardy will apply.  Gather the evidences and produce them at the trial stage and contest your grounds.

Thank you. I am arranging all bits of information for placing before the Family Court.

First a disclaimer that I am NOT and  advocate and in this case am not fully familiar with all the applicable law. I am however  fully aware of Res Judicata and its more powerful elder brother constructive Res Judicata which most advocates fail to raise when raising the defense of Res Judicata, Check the section numbers under CPC.  

If assuming that  res judicata or double jeopardy is applicable, you need to argue that whatever is argued now, could have been argued earlier but was not argued and is therefore waived (constructive res judicata. Plain res judicata does not cover this and the Judge is not going to be your advocate). The doctrine of waiver also kicks in and so does the theory of estoppel. You need to club all of them together and reference them just to be sure that you have not missed anything that fundamentally precludes re-litigation. That said, new circumstances always form a basis for a new maintenance application.

125 Cr.P.C. is a wild beast. It is the most powerful of all the weapons in the maintenance laws. Other maintenance laws are covered much better (from a man's perspective of course) under the law of limitations, for example. 125 Cr.P.C. is not. For example, maintenance cannot be waived pursuant to 125 Cr.P.C. but can be argued to be waived in civil proceedings, if not timely raised or if raised after many years (limitation Act).

As a general rule, Civil Proceedings against you, ruled in your favour, can be used to argue against Criminal proceedings filed against you, but not the other way around (Please confirm this statement). The logic is that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding against you is higher than in a civil proceeding. 

If there are two parallel proceedings... one in a civil court and another in a criminal court based upon the same factual allegations, then it is always better, if either one is ruled in your favor, to let the other party go for an appeal and lose. Why? If the High Court affirms the judgement, then the  FACTUAL FINDINGS of the trial Court in that judgement, civil or criminal, are now cast in stone and all the lower courts, whether civil or criminal, are bound by these factual findings affirmed by the High Court, even if the Acts under which new proceedings are filed or currently ongoing, whether civil or criminal, are different. Of course, you need good legal skills to argue this. It is not merely a direct application of double jeopardy or res judicata but derived from the same concept. If the proceeding under which you prevailed (for e.g. in Family Court) was not appealed, you ought to argue that as it was not appealed, it has the same weight as that of a High Court Order. Frankly, this is a far-fetched argument but hey, why not?

I am not an advocate so even if my above statements turn out to be inaccurate, I hope that they provide some hints on possibilities you should explore!