Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Ranjan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that since the cause of action in both the petitions is different the same would not be barred by res judicata.          

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of X v. Y. 

What was the Background of X v. Y Case?  

• The Appellant (husband) and the Respondent (wife) were married. 
• The Appellant filed a Matrimonial case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) for divorce mainly on the grounds of desertion. 
• The above was the first divorce case filed by the husband against the wife. 
• This was however dismissed on the ground that desertion on the part of the Respondent was not proved by the Appellant. 
• The second case was filed by the husband against the wife in 2021 whereby: 
  • The husband made similar allegations as made in the first case. 
  • Further, new claims of cruelty were also made whereby the husband alleged that  
    • The wife, her brother-in-law, and another relative allegedly attacked the husband's mother and sister 
    • The wife broke household items. 
    • The villagers were called and the alleged attackers fled. 
    • Thereafter, a police report was filed. 
• The wife responded to the allegations as follows: 
  • She denied the allegations of cruelty 
  • She confirmed that she lives in a two-room accommodation in the matrimonial house (as per a previous domestic violence case order) 
  • She argued that since the first divorce case was dismissed, the second case should also be dismissed  
• The Family Court dismissed the matrimonial case file by the appellant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of being barred by res judicata. 
• The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court  Ambedkar Nagar. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that while some paragraphs in the second divorce petition were identical to the first, the second petition introduced additional grounds not present in the first petition. 
• The Court observed that the new elements in the second petition are as follows: 
  • The second petition highlighted litigation costs and expenses paid to the wife. 
  • It mentioned a specific incident from 2020 involving physical and mental assault of the husband's family members. 
• The Court referenced Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) which focused on determining whether the cause of action in the second suit was different from the first. 
• The Court held that to apply the bar of res judicata, the court needed to assess if the fundamental cause of action had changed. 
• It was observed that addition of new grounds and incidents suggested a potentially different cause of action. 
• Accordingly, the Court allowed the present appeal and the impugned decree was ser aside.

What is Res Judicata? 

• Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”. 
• Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment. 
• It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. 
• It serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect parties from being vexed twice for the same cause. 
• The object of the principle of res judicata can be traced by three judicial maxims:  
  • Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It means no man should be vexed twice for the same cause.  
  • Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This maxim means it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation.  
  • Res judicata pro veritate occipitur: a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. 
• Essential Elements: 
  • Matter in issue must be same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially same in the former suit.  
  • Same Parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.   
  • Same Title: The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the former and subsequent suits.   
  • Competent Jurisdiction: The court that decided the former suit must have had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been raised.  
  • Heard and Finally Decided: The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided by the former court.

How is the Applicability of Res Judicata Determined in Divorce Cases? 

• Difference in reliefs in previous and later proceedings in marital status causes is immaterial for attracting the relevance of the doctrine of Res Judicata. 
• For the applicability of res judicata the cause of action in both the cases must be different.  
• A husband 1st filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights that was dismissed on the findings that the wife was turned out of the house and she was treated with cruelty. 
  • Subsequently the husband filed a suit for divorce on the grounds inter alia for desertion. 
  • It had been held that the issue of desertion was barred by Res Judicata.

What are the Case Laws on this Point?

• Balveer Singh v. Harjeet Kaur (2017) 
  • This judgment was delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court. 
  • The appellant had filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a divorce. 
  • The main issue before the High Court was whether this petition was prohibited by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (which deals with res judicata, meaning a case already decided cannot be re-litigated). 
  • This question arose because an earlier case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (related to restitution of conjugal rights) had already been resolved. 
  • The Court held that proceedings under section 13A of the Act will not be barred by Res Judicata on the basis of prior proceedings under Section 9 of the Act.