In matrimonial disputes, grounds such as cruelty and desertion are considered continuing causes of action; therefore, a fresh petition for divorce is not barred by Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC even if a previous petition was dismissed for default.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Order dt 16.10.2024 passed in C.F.R. No.1515 of 2024 (I.A. No. 444 of 2024) in Unnumbered H.M.O.P. on the file of the court of Learned Additional Civil Court (Senior Division), Ongole,

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of [ 110] days in representing the revision in CRP No. 2076 of 2025 and to pass

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 16.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.444 of 2024 in unnumbered H.M.O.P. by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/husband filed H.M.O.P. vide CFR No.1515 of 2024 under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking divorce from the respondent/wife. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole rejected the same under Order-VII, Rule-11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, in view of bar under Order IX Rule-9 of CPC on the ground that earlier, the petitioner filed divorce petition vide HMOP No.27 of 2015 and the same was dismissed for default on 05.06.2018 and restoration petition filed vide I.A.No.607 of 2018 was also dismissed on 13.08.2020 and therefore, the petitioner is debarred from filing fresh petition on the same cause of action. The said rejection order was assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for respondent.

4. Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition would contend that the present divorce petition is based on new and subsequent cause of action, however the learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the same. She would further contend that the subsequent event that had taken place after dismissal of earlier divorce petition for default would make fresh cause of action for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and further the present divorce petition did contain a specific averment that respondent/wife had subjected him to cruelty after dismissal of earlier petition and therefore, since the present divorce petition has been founded on a different cause of action cannot be said to be barred under Order-IX, Rule-9 CPC, however the learned trial Judge upon misconception of facts of the case rejected the petition, which is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sinnamani and another v. G.Vettivel and others , 1. 2012 AIR SC 2372 and orders dated 02.01.2025 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.1447 of 2024 of High Court of Telangana.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for respondent, contended that a perusal of the pleadings of the present divorce petition would clearly indicate that the same has been filed on the self same cause of action on which the earlier divorce petition was filed, which was dismissed for default and therefore, the same is hit by Order-IX, Rule-9 of CPC and the learned trial Judge had rightly rejected the p