Judgment in matrimonial jurisdiction operates as judgment in rem, binding the whole world, while maintenance suit decision only binds parties.

( 1 ) THE point involved in this appeal beats on the applicability of the doctrine of Res Judicata to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 2 ) THE appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, applied for a decree for judicial separation against his wife in the Subordinate Judges Court, Kavali, on the allegation that she had deserted him some years before the institution of the petition.

( 3 ) THE petition was opposed by the wife inter alia on the plea that a prior decision, rendered by the District Munsifs Court, Kavali, that the husband had abandoned his wife and therefore the latter was entitled to separate maintenance operated as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings. This issue was tried as a preliminary one and it was found in favour of the respondent, the wife. In this view of the matter, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is this view of the Subordinate Judge that is impugned before us in this appeal preferred by the aggrieved husband.

( 4 ) IT is contended by Sri Venkatarama Sastry, learned counsel for the appellant, that since the condition regarding the competency of the former Court to try this matter is not complied with in that it was not competent for the District Munsif to entertain proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, this case is not governed, by the doctrine of res judicata. The learned counsel argues that notwithstanding the fact that the plea of res judicata was founded on general principles of law and not on Section 11 C. P. C. , the condition mentioned above had to be fulfilled when the Court which tried the earlier suit was not one of exclusive jurisdiction. This argument is countered by the learned counsel for the respondent by the argument that when the plea of res judicata rested on general principles of law all that was necessary to establish was that the Court that heard and decided the former case was a Court of competent jurisdiction and It was not necessary in such a case to also prove that it had jurisdiction to hear the later suit. In support of this argument, reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, 1953 SCR 154 (S. C) at p. 173 : (AIR 1953 SC 33 at p. 40), Mahajan J. (as he then was), who delivered the opinion of the Court, remarked :"the condition regarding the competency of the former Court to try the subsequent suit is one of the limitations engrafted on the general rule of res judicata by Section 11 of the Code and has application to suits alone. Men a plea of res judicata is founded on general principles of law, all that is necessary to establish is that the Court that heard and decided the former case was a Court ol competent jurisdiction. It does not seem necessary in such cases to further prove that it has jurisdiction to hear the later suit. "

( 5 ) IT is argued by Sri Venkatarama Sastry that these observations should be understood in the light of the facts of that case and the subsequent sentence following them, namely:"a plea of res judicata on general principles can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of Courts of exclusive jurisdiction, like revenue Courts, land acquisition Courts, administration Courts, etc. "the learned counsel argues that the rule stated in the passage extracted above is applicable only to cases of Judgments rendered by Courts of exclusive jurisdiction and does not govern cases tried and decided by ordinary civil Courts.

( 6 ) AS substantiating this distinction, he relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287 (SC ). It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this controversy, as we think that the matter is governed by another principle.

( 7 ) IT should be borne in mind that the judgment in the maintenance suit decided the rights as between the parties and that being a proceeding inte