Read Judgement ;
The learned single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that since res judicata is universally applicable, a petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C will be protected by this principle, and a subsequent petition that arises from the same dispute and showcases similar circumstances and grounds as the earlier petition cannot be preferred.
Brief Facts of the Case
Briefly stated, the parties' marriage was solemnised in the year 1990, and they last shared home up until January 1996. There are two children born out of wedlock: a son who is of majority age and a daughter who is still a minor. There have been numerous lawsuits between the parties since their divorce. One such case was filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The Petitioners, in its second petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., requested that the Respondent pay Rs. 10,000 per month to both petitioners. The Petitioners also requested that the Court award litigation expenses in their favour through the Petition.
Submission of the Learned Counsels ;
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to file a new petition because there has been a change in the cause of action. He further argued that because the petitioner was not receiving maintenance on the date the present petition was filed before the learned Trial Court, the principle of res judicata was not applicable in this case under the facts and circumstances. He contended that the claimants can file separate maintenance claims each month if necessary. Furthermore, maintenance was granted only from the date the said claim petition was filed. Further, the said order did not stipulate that it would continue to operate in the future. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that it cannot be assumed to be in operation after the decision on the Maintenance Petition.
It was stated that the petitioner was legally entitled to monthly maintenance after January 2015. As a result, Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not the appropriate remedy.
The learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the contrary hand, contends that the impugned order is without flaws and is legal. Once a maintenance application has been adjudicated on the merits, the only relief available is under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and no new cause of action can be claimed, entitling the petitioner to file a new petition. The learned trial court correctly dismissed the petitioner's petition on the grounds of res judicata because the petitioner had purposefully concealed the fact that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. had already been adjudicated in favour of the Petitioner.
Observation of the Court
single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted that the most important precondition for Section 125 Cr.P.C. to become operative is the condition that the
wife is unable to maintain herself and that the husband has neglected or refused to maintain his wife. Preconditions to Section 125 Cr.P.C becoming operative are the wife's inability to support herself and the husband's neglect or refusal to do so.
Consequently, an individual's recourse in case of changed circumstances and alteration after an order of maintenance has been granted by a court with competent jurisdiction is outlined under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Consequently, if the parties concerned change their circumstances at the time of applying alteration of the original maintenance order, a fresh petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C is required rather than a fresh petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Furthermore, the subsequent petition shall be barred by the principle of res judicata and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall not be maintainable since the same has been adjudicated on merit previously wherein the maintenance was granted to the Petitioners.
Additionally, taking reference to precedents, the court noted that in Nagabhushanammal v. C. Chandikeswaralingam the Apex Court defined the term 'Res Judicata'.
"Furthermore, given the universal applicability of the principle of res judicata as established in M. Nagabhushana v. the State of Karnataka, one can conclude that the res judicata principle applies to both civil and criminal proceedings to secure the interest of justice. In addition, it should be rejected that the order of maintenance was only for the month in which it was passed since an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. lists the date from which maintenance is to be paid as per the mandate of Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr."
As a result, the court concluded that the merits of the case have been determined. Moreover, the learned bench directed the petitioner to seek relief under Section 127 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the event of a change in circumstances. In light of the above, the present revision petition was dismissed.
CASE TITLE: SUNITA & ANR. Vs. VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR.
CORAM: SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments