Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 90 (AP)

K. Sri Rekha v. K. Vijay Krishna

2012-01-27

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is a vexatious piece of litigation indulged in by the petitioner, who seems to think that she can approach this Court again and again by raising the same issue, which was raised in the previous rounds of litigation, wherein she has conclusively lost. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent, who filed OP.No.312 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, for declaration that the marriage between him and the petitioner is a nullity. Pending the said OP, the petitioner filed IA.No.296 of 2010 for dismissing the OP on the ground that the respondent failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). By detailed Order, dated 30th July, 2010, the lower Court dismissed the said application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed CRP.No.4303 of 2010, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Order, dated 24-09-2010. The petitioner again took her chance by filing W.P.No.35609 of 2011 for a direction to call for the records in OP.No.312 of 2009 and to declare the same as contrary to law and violative of the Marriage laws (Amendment) Act, 1999 read with other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deleted the ailment of epilepsy as a ground for granting divorce. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition by holding that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the order passed by a Judicial forum and that, on the petitioner’s own showing, she has other remedies available for getting Order, dated 30-07-2010, set aside. Undeterred by the said order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that since CRP.No.4303 of 2010 was not dismissed on merits, the order in IA.No.296 of 2010 does not operate as res judicata. I am afraid I cannot accept this submission. Even though CRP No.4303 of 2010 was not decided on merits, the order in IA.No.296 of 2010 stood confirmed with the dismissal of the CRP as withdrawn. The petitioner has not obtained any permission to file a fresh CRP. 4. I am afraid I cannot accept this submission. Even though CRP No.4303 of 2010 was not decided on merits, the order in IA.No.296 of 2010 stood confirmed with the dismissal of the CRP as withdrawn. The petitioner has not obtained any permission to file a fresh CRP. 4. In Sheodan Singh vs. Smt.Daryan Kunwar ( AIR 1966 SC 1332 ), the Supreme Court considered a case where an appeal filed against the judgment and decree of trial Court was dismissed for non-prosecution. The contention that the said dismissal does not operate as res judicata was repelled by the Supreme Court by holding that such dismissal by the appellate Court has the affect of confirming the decision of the trial Court rendered on merits and that it amounts to the appeal being heard and finally decided on merits whatever may be the ground of dismissal of the appeal. 5. If the parties are allowed to litigate by initiating fresh proceedings time and again, that would amount to encouraging vexatious litigation. In my opinion, even if CRP.No.4303 of 2010 was not dismissed on merits, the order therein constitutes res judicata. The principle of res judicata is based on public policy that the lis once adjudicated shall not be raised again and again. 6. The present Civil Revision Petition is sheer abuse of process of Court and hence, the same is dismissed. The petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the respondent for indulging in vexatious litigation. 7. As a sequel, CMP.No.117 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.