Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Nidhi Jain – Appellant
Versus
Ankit Jain – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 127 of 2022 & CM Appl. 38047 of 2022
Decided On : 27-07-2023
Withdrawal of Petition - Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Section 151 CPC - Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of her application under Section 151 CPC in HMA petition No.1367/2019, where the respondent sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The appellant contended that the new petition was based on the same cause of action as the previous petition, which had been unconditionally withdrawn by the respondent. The respondent argued that the cause of action in the new petition was not absolutely the same as in the previous petition and cited legal provisions to support the maintainability of the new petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the new petition was based on the same cause of action as the previous petition, and its institution was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC as well as on the principles of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel. The court also noted that the instances of cruelty cited in both petitions were virtually the same, and the appellant taking recourse to law did not imply cruelty. The court allowed the appeal and dismissed HMA Petition No. 1367/2019.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the new petition based on the same cause of action as the previous petition, the applicability of legal provisions such as Section 151 CPC and Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC, and the interpretation of the principles of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the new petition was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC and the principles of issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel, as it was based on the same cause of action as the previous petition, which had been unconditionally withdrawn by the respondent. The court also emphasized that taking recourse to law did not imply cruelty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and dismissed HMA Petition No. 1367/2019.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Jain, J.
1. Appellant has challenged order dated 25.07.2022 whereby her application under Section 151 CPC filed in HMA petition No.1367/2019 titled as Ankit Jain vs. Nidhi Jain has been dismissed by learned Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi.
2. Appellant got married to respondent on 16.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. However, their marriage was in turmoil and the matrimonial discord between the two resulted in filing of various cases by them, against each other.
3. Presently, we are concerned with HMA petition No.1367/2019 filed by the respondent whereby he has sought dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty. Said petition is pending adjudication and the trial is yet to begin.
4. It needs to be highlighted that the respondent had earlier also filed two petitions seeking dissolution of marriage. One such petition was filed on 15.12.2012 which was registered as HMA 594/2012. By virtue of said petition also, he had sought divorce but it was dismissed at the very threshold, being barred under Section 14(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(in short HMA) as it had been filed within one year of the marriage and no instance of any exceptional hardship to him or exceptional depravity on the part of his wife could be brought on record.
5. Thereafter, respondent filed one more petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on 23.03.2013. Said petition was registered as HMA No.219/2013. For the sake of convenience, said petition would be hereinafter referred to as "the previous petition." He sought divorce citing several grounds of cruelty allegedly attributable to his wife. The previous petition was contested by the Appellant/wife. Issues were framed and the case was put to trial but before the conclusion of the trial, respondent withdrew the same on 07.04.2016. Respondent personally appeared before the concerned court of learned Principal Judge, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi and withdrew the same.
6. After the withdrawal of the previous petition on 07.04.2016, respondent again filed a petition seeking divorce on the same ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of HMA. In his such petition (hereinafter referred to as the new petition), he did divulge that he had previously filed a divorce petition, which was withdrawn by him. He, however, claimed that the petition was withdrawn by him as he was fed up of legal battles between him and his wife. In the new petition, he, inter alia, also claimed he had not condoned any act of cruelty.
7. Appellant contested the new petition also and filed written submission-cum-reply refuting the averments made in the petition as well taking certain objections.
8. During the pendency of the new petition, appellant filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the petition on the ground that the new petition was based on the same cause of action which had been averred by the respondent when he had filed the previous petition seeking divorce in the year 2013. She claimed that since the previous petition was withdrawn by him unconditionally and without assigning any reason whatsoever, he was barred by law from filing a fresh petition on the same cause of action. It was also contended that when the previous petition was withdrawn by him, he had neither sought nor was granted any liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action and, therefore, his act of filing the new petition was a clear abuse of process of law and thus, the new petition was liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned Trial Court noticed that the previous petition had also been filed on the similar grounds but observed that in the new petition, respondent had come up with new set of allegations as there was mention of one incident dated 14.12.2016. Holding that such incident dated 14.12.2016 was not then available to the petitioner, as the previous petition had been withdrawn on 07.04.2016 and also after making reference to other facts of the case, the learned
The withdrawal of a petition on the ground of cruelty constitutes condonation, and the institution of a new petition on the same cause of action is barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC and the prin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a petition for divorce under Sec. 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to be maintainable, there must be two years continuous deserti....
Cruelty, as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, allows for divorce when prolonged separation and mutual hostility inflict emotional pain, rendering cohabitation intolerable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a fresh cause of action for seeking divorce, the continuous nature of desertion, and the interconnection between the i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the impact of criminal and other proceedings on the parties, leading to the grant of divorce....
The court emphasized the need for substantiating allegations of cruelty and highlighted the inapplicability of the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' for dissolution of marriage under th....
Evidence of mental cruelty was established, justifying dissolution of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, where irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not independently recognized as a ground.
Claims of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated; mere allegations do not suffice under Hindu Marriage Act, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
