ORDER : 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 21/2/2013(Annexure P/1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No.652/2009. 2. Facts of the case reveal that a divorce petition has been preferred under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955and the same is pending for adjudication before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. During the pendency of the divorce petition, an application was preferred u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance and other reliefs and the application has been rejected by the trial Court. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that her application has been rejected on a technical ground and she has not been heard at any point of time on merits. Petitioner has further stated that she is facing a divorce petition and she is looking after two school going children. It has also been stated that her elder minor son Rishabh is studying in 12th Standard in Saint Mary Junior College, ISC Board, Pune and the petitioner has to deposit tuition fee and other fees amounting to Rs.32,000/- per month. It has also been stated that the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month towards school fee and tuition fee in respect of her younger son Vardhan who is student of 10th standard at Saint Mary School, Pune, ICSE Board. It has been further stated that she also needs Rs.30,000/- for their school dress, stationary, computer, internet and petrol expenses. The petitioner has furnished details of the income of the husband and it has been stated on affidavit that her husband is earning aboutRs.2.00 crores per month from various businesses and property and, therefore, a sum of Rs.13.00 lacs per month should be granted to her towards maintenance and daily expenses and a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs per month be granted towards maintenance, educational expenses of her children. She also demanded a sum of Rs.40.00 lacs per month as she wants to send her elder son to United Kingdom for higher studies. 4. The petitioner's application dt. 29/1/2013 was taken up by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore has dismissed the application on the ground that earlier three applications preferred under the same Section ie., Sec. 24 read with Sec.26, have been dismissed. 5. 4. The petitioner's application dt. 29/1/2013 was taken up by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore has dismissed the application on the ground that earlier three applications preferred under the same Section ie., Sec. 24 read with Sec.26, have been dismissed. 5. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and her contention is that her first application suffered deemed dismissal on 5/7/2011 as she was not present before the Principal Judge on 5/7/2011, as her application for condoning her absence was dismissed. She has further stated that an order was passed on the same day to proceed exparte. Petitioner has further stated that thereafter an application was preferred u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 28/4/12 along with an application u/S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the same was again dismissed on 28/4/12 on technical grounds. The Principal Judge, Family Court has refused to entertain the application on the ground that earlier the Court has already dismissed the earlier application on 5/7/2011. It has been further stated that being aggrieved by order dt. 28/4/2012, the petitioner came up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court has declined to interfere with the order dt. 28/4/12. The petitioner has thereafter preferred another application u/S.24 and the same was dismissed on 6/11/2012, again on technical grounds, without considering it on merits. The contention of the petitioner is that her third application was dismissed on 6/11/2012 as she has not provided a translated copy of the application. The contention of the petitioner is that thereafter as she does not have financial means to support herself and her children, again preferred an application on 29/1/13 and the Principal Judge has again dismissed the application on an objection preferred by the husband that earlier applications u/Ss. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have already been dismissed. 6. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have already been dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner who is facing divorce proceedings since 2006 and who is looking after two grown-up children, does not have enough financial means to support herself and to attend each and every date at Indore and the Principal Judge of the Family Court, instead of deciding the application on merits, has dismissed the application by taking a hypertechnical view of the matter. It has also been stated that the lis has never been decided on merits, at any point of time and, therefore, the question of res-judicata in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. An attempt has also been made in the Writ Petition to demonstrate that the husband is receiving about 2 crores per month as his income. He is financially a well-off person and a relief in the present Writ Petition has also been prayed to direct the husband to pay a sum of Rs.13.00 lacs towards maintenance of the wife, Rs.3.00 lacs towards maintenance of children and Rs.3.00 lacs towards litigation expenses. However, the fact remains that this Court has to adjudicate whether the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore is in accordance with law or not. 7. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent – husband by placing heavy reliance upon the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has been argued that the relief claimed by the petitioner is barred by the principles of res-judicata and this Court is precluded from deciding the controversy, as applications after applications were preferred u/Ss. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and they have been dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court. Other grounds have also been made in respect of misstatement of facts on the point of ownership of property and also in respect of certain statements made in the Writ Petition regarding financial status of the husband, however, as this Court is not deciding any application u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the question of looking into all those details does not arise. 8. 8. Contention of the learned senior counsel arguing the matter on behalf of the respondent is that the first application preferred by the wife was dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court on 5/7/2011, the second application preferred u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed on 28/4/2012. Writ Petition No.4978/2012, which was arising out of order dt. 28/4/2012 was dismissed by this Court on 28/9/2012. The third application u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed on 6/11/2012 and, therefore, the Presiding Officer, Family Court has rightly dismissed the 4th application dt. 29/1/2013 vide impugned order dated 21/2/2013. Learned senior counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that on account of the principles of res-judicata, an issue cannot betaken up again and again and once the applications have been dismissed thrice, the Family Court was justified in dismissing the application vide impugned order. Heavy reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and another reported in ( AIR 2005 SC 626 ) and contention of the learned senior counsel is that the principles of res-judicata applies in different stages of the same proceedings. His contention is that on account of resjudicata, in the light of the judgment of the apex Court, the question of entertaining the present Writ Petition does not arise and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. He has also placed heavy reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath reported in ( AIR 1994 SC 853 ) and his contention is that with holding of vital documents relevant to the litigation is a fraud and incase a litigant commits a fraud, guilty party is liable to be thrown out at any stage. He has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner, as she has made incorrect statements in the present Writ Petition about the financial status as well as about other assets of her husband, she is guilty of committing fraud and she deserves to be thrown out. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition with heavy costs. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the motion stage itself with the consent of the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition with heavy costs. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the motion stage itself with the consent of the parties. 10. The petitioner before this Court is certainly a respondent in a divorce suit filed by her husband which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. The suit was filed in the year 2007 at Pune and a petition was preferred before the apex Court u/S. 25 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 139 of the Constitution of India for transfer of suit from Pune to the Family Court at Indore. Hon'ble the Apex Court, after hearing the parties at length, has transferred the suit, which was pending before the Family Court, Pune, within the State of Maharashtra to the Family Court, Indore, within the State of Madhya Pradesh, by order dt. 6/7/2009. The following order was passed by the apex Court. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION [CIVIL] No. 135 OF 2007 Sona Subhash Talera - Petitioners Vs. Subhash Chandulalji Talera & Anr.- Respondents ORDER Heard learned counsel for parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, P.A.No. 975 of 2006, titled as Subhash Chandulal Talera vs. Sona Subhash Talera and P.D. No.6 of 2007, titled as Sumandevi Chandulal Talera & Anr. Vs. Sona Subhash Talera, pending before the Family Court, Pune, within the State of Maharashtra, are transferred to the Family Court, Indore, within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Transfer petition is, accordingly allowed. New Delhi, July 06, 2009. 11. Since then the proceedings are taking place at Indore before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. It is an undisputed fact that the present petitioner has preferred first application u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 5/7/2011, an order was passed to proceed ex-parte against the present petitioner (defendant), the following order was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. It is an undisputed fact that the present petitioner has preferred first application u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 5/7/2011, an order was passed to proceed ex-parte against the present petitioner (defendant), the following order was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. ,d vkosnu çLrqr fd;kA bl vkosnu ij lquk x;kA bl vkosnu ds }kjk çfrçkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ds fy, pkj ekg dk le; fn, tkus dh çkFkZuk bl vk/kkj ij dh gS fd çfrçkFkhZ ds llqj tks mlds lkFk jg jgs gS] vpkud ckgj pys x, gS vkSj çfrçkFkhZ nksuks cPpksa dks NksM+dj U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gks ldrh gSA vkosnu ij fopkj fd;kA vo;Ld cPpksa dh ns[kjs[k djuk efgyk dk dRrZO; gSA ,slh n'kk esa vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA çfrçkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ds fy, le; fn;k tkrk gSA çdj.k çfrçkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr gsrq fnukad & 5-7-2011 dks is'k gksA ¼vkj- ds- xksLokeh½ ç/kku U;k;k/kh'k çkFkhZ Loa; mifLFkfrA çfrçkFkhZ vuqifLFkfrA çfrçkFkhZ dh vksj ls Jh nhid oekZ vfHkHkk"kd us çfrçkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj;qDr vkosnu i= çLrqr fd;kA çkFkhZ dks bl ij vkifRr gSA çfrçkFkhZ dh vksj ls U;k;fe= dks vuqefr ugha nh xà gSA xr is'kh fnukad 6-4-2011 dks çfrçkFkhZ ds vkosnu ij çfrçkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ds fy;s rhu ekg dk volj fn;k x;kA vc le; fn;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vr% çfrçkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus ls mldh vksj ls çLrqr vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA çfrçkFkhZ ds fo:} ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tkrh gSA çdj.k çkFkhZ dh ,di{kh; lk{; gsrq fnukad & 19-8-2011 dks is'k gksA ¼vkj- ds- xksLokeh½ ç/kku U;k;k/kh'k d- U;k;ky;] bankSj e-ç- 12. The order reflects that the defendant was not present on 5/7/2011 and she was proceeded ex-parte. However, the order does not mention categorically that her application u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has also been rejected. The petitioner – wife preferred an application u/S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a prayer was made for recall of order dt. 5/7/2011. It was also explained by her in her application dt. 20/10/2011 as to why she was not able to appear on 5/7/2011, however, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has passed the following order dt. 5/7/2011. It was also explained by her in her application dt. 20/10/2011 as to why she was not able to appear on 5/7/2011, however, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has passed the following order dt. 28/4/12 and the same reads as under : U;k;ky; & iz/kku U;k;k/kh’k] dqVqEc U;k;ky;] bankSj e-iz- ¼le{k & Jherh vk’kk HkVukxj½ fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e iz-dz- 652@2009 lqHkk”k Bsyjk & izkFkhZ cuke lksuk & izfrizkFkhZ ¼vkt fnukad 28-4-2012 dks ikfjr½ 1- bl vkns’k ds }kjk iRuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu fnukad 20-10-2011 vUrxZr /kkjk 151 lhihlh dk fujkdj.k gksxkA 2- izdj.k esa ;g fufoZokfnr gS fd i{kdkj ifr&iRuh vkSj ifr us rykd ds fy;s og ekeyk o”kZ 2006 esa izLrqr fd;k gSA 3- izdj.k esa fopkj.k ds nkSjku fnukad 5-7-2011 dks iRuh lksuk vuqifLFkr Fkh vkSj mldh vksj ls is’k /kkjk 24 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk vkosnu mlh fnu fujLr fd;k x;kA 4- fopkjk/khu vkosnu dk lkjka’k gS fd fnukad 5-7-2011 dks mldh vuqifLFkfr ln~Hkkfod Fkh vkSj mlds fo:} dh xbZ ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh 18 vDVwcj 2011 dks gVk nh xbZ gSA fnukad 5-7-2011 dks mlds }kjk izLrqr vkosnu /kkjk 24 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr dj fn;k x;k gSA pawfd ,di{kih; dk;Zokgh gVk nh xbZ gS blfy;s mDr vkosnu ij lquokbZ dh tk,A vkosfndk dh vksj ls izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd mDr vkosnu esUVsusal ds fy;s Fkk mDr vkosnu ij lquokbZ dh tk, vkSj mls fujLr djus dk vkns’k fd;k tk,A 5- foi{kh us vkosnu dk foLr`r tokc nsrs gq, mldk fojks/k fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd vkosfndk dks fopkjk/khu vkosnu izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA fujLr vkosnu dks iqu% lquokbZ esa fy;s tkus dk dksbZ izko/kku O;-iz-la- ds vUrxZr ugha gSA ;fn vkosfndk mDr vkns’k ls O;fFkr Fkh rks mls fof/kor Åij ds U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh djuh FkhA izLrqr vkosnu mldh ykijokgh o nqHkkZouk dk ifjpk;d gS rFkk vof/k ckf/kr Hkh gSA fnukad 5-7-2011 dks vkosfndk dh vuqifLFkfr esa] is’k fd;k x;k vkosnu fcuk fdlh dk;Zokgh ds rRdky fujLr dj fn;k x;k gS vkSj mlds fo:} ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh Hkh dh xbZ gSA mldh vuqifLFkfr dks dksbZ mfpr vk/kkj Hkh ugha crk;k x;k vkSj xksyeksy dFku fd;s x;s gSaA leFkZu esa Hkh is’k ugha gS vr% vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tk,A 6- mHk;i{k ds rdZ lqus x;sA izdj.k ,oa izko/kkuksa dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- vkosfndk us vius i{k leFkZu esa [ksepan fo- fujatuyky ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1954 jktLFkku 15] jkedqekj fo- lhrkjke] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1961 iVuk 277] usehpan fo- mEesney] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1962 jktLFkku 107 esa izfrikfnr U;kf;d n`”Vkarksa dk voyacu ysrs gq, vkosnu Lohdkj djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA 8- foi{kh ds vuqlkj mDr U;kf;d n`”Vkarksa ds i{kdkj dks dksbZ en~n ugha feyrh] ;g fuosnu djrs gq, vkosnu i= fujLr djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA 9- dqVqEc U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 i{kdkjksa dh vksj ls vf/koDrk }kjk iSjoh dh vuqefr] U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ds fcuk ugha nsrkA 10- vkosfndk iRuh ds vf/koDrk }kjk fnukad 5-7-2011 dks izLrqr vkosnu ds laca/k esa vfHkoDrk dks vuqefr ugha nh xbZ FkhA vkns’k fnukad 5-7-2011 dk mYys[k izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS %& ^^izkFkhZ Lo;a mifLFkrA izfrizkFkhZ vuqifLFkrA izfrizkFkhZ dh vksj ls Jh nhid oekZ vfHkHkk”kd us izfrizkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj;qDr vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ dks bl ij vkifRr gSA izfrizkFkhZ dh vksj ls U;k;fe= dks vuqefr ugha nh xbZ gSA xr is’kh fnukad 6-4-2011 dks izfrizkFkhZ ds vkosnu ij izfrizkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ds fy;s rhu ekg dk volj fn;k x;k FkkA vc le; fn;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vr% izfrizkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus ls mldh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izfrizkFkhZ ds fo:} ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tkrh gSA izdj.k izkFkhZ dh ,di{kh; lk{; gsrq fnukad 19-8-2011 dks is’k gksA** 11- fopkjk/khu ekeys esa i{kdkj o”kksZ ls ,d nwljs ls vyx jg jgs gSA /kkjk 151 O;-iz-la- ds izko/kku fof/k ds foijhr dk;Zokgh djus dh vuqefr ugh nsrkA vr% blds vUrxZr vkosnu izLrqr dj fnukad 5-7-2011 dks fujLr vkosnu] vUrxZr /kkjk 24 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e ij iqu% fopkj fd;k tkuk fof/k lEer ugha gSA izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fopkjk/khu vkosnu dnkfi Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izLrqr U;kf;d n`”Vkar izdj.kks dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ls ykxw ugha gksrsA 12- fopkjksijkar /kkjk 151 O;-iz-la- dk vkosnu i= fnukad 20-10-2011 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k esjs cksys vuqlkj VafdrA ¼Jherh vk’kk HkVukxj½ iz- U;k;k/kh’k] dq- U;k;k/kh’k] bankSj e-iz- vkns’k [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kfjr] fnukafdr dj ikfjr fd;k x;kA ¼Jherh vk’kk HkVukxj½ iz- U;k;k/kh’k] dq- U;k;k/kh’k] bankSj e-iz-A 13. The learned Presiding Officer has rejected the application preferred by the wife u/S. 151, meaning thereby, the order dt. 5/7/11 was not recalled. The petitioner instead of filing a fresh application u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition and this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the wife by order dt. 28/9/2012 passed in Writ Petition 4978/2012, the following order was passed by this Court : IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH INDORE (SINGLE BENCH HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K.SETH) Writ Petition No. 4978 OF 2012 Petitioner : Sona Talera. Versus Respondent: Subhash Talera. x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x ORDER (Passed on 28th day of September, 2012) This petition is by a wife against the Order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Indore rejecting her application dated 20.10.2011. 2. Respondent-husband has filed a petition for divorce. In said proceedings, on 5.7.2011 an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage was filed on behalf of the petitioner/wife by her Advocate. Learned family Court on the said date proceeded exparte against the petitioner as she failed to attend hearing in person and as no leave was granted till then to appear through an Advocate, the application u/s. 24 Hindu Marriage Act too was rejected. 3. Later on, Family Court on an application made by the wife/petitioner recalled the said exparte order. In view of this, on 20.10.2011 petitioner/wife filed another application u/s. 151 CPC for revival of the application u/s. 24 of the Act of the petitioner. That applicant stands rejected by the order impugned, hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard rival contentions at length. Perused the material placed on record of this case as well as connected writ petition (W.P.No. 6420 OF 2012) filed by the wife against another order of the Family Court in the same divorce proceedings. That writ petition is decided by separate order passed today. 5. Now the question is whether the Family Court Indore committed an illegality in rejecting the application dated 20.10.2011 filed by the wife under section 151 CPC. 6. Respondent-husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner-wife at Pune. The divorce petition stood transferred to Family Court at Indore by virtue of Orders passed by the Supreme Court at the instance of the wife. 6. Respondent-husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner-wife at Pune. The divorce petition stood transferred to Family Court at Indore by virtue of Orders passed by the Supreme Court at the instance of the wife. Before the Family Court Indore, wife did not attend hearing on 5.7.2011 therefore Court proceeded exparte against her. Later on, Court below recalled that order on 18.10.2011. 7. After order dated 18.10.2011 was passed, the petitioner filed an application on 20.10.2011 for revival of application u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act since earlier rejection was not on merit. 8. After hearing rival submissions and going through the material on record, we do not find any flaw or infirmity with the impugned order. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that once the ex-parte order is recalled, therefore, petitioner would stand relegated to the position in which she was on the date when Court proceeded ex-parte against her. If this contention on behalf of petitioner is accepted, it would lead to chaos and would not be congenial for judicial discipline. 9. We therefore find no merit in this petition so as to warrant interference with the order impugned. In the result this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed without any orders as to costs. 10. Ordered accordingly. 14. The petitioner, as she was facing great financial hardships and was managing with great difficulty, as she is looking after two grown-up boys, again preferred an application u/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and by order dt. 6/11/12, the same was dismissed. The Principal Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application by observing that the petitioner was required to furnish Hindi Translation of certain documents and as she has failed to submit Hindi Translation of certain documents, the application deserves dismissal and the same has been dismissed. The order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, dt. 6/11/12, the same was dismissed. The Principal Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application by observing that the petitioner was required to furnish Hindi Translation of certain documents and as she has failed to submit Hindi Translation of certain documents, the application deserves dismissal and the same has been dismissed. The order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, dt. 6/11/2012 reads as under :- 6-11-2012 vkosnd lfgr Jh ,l- ,deso vf/koDrk mi-1 vukosfndk }kjk Jh vj'kn fetkZ vf/koDrk mi-1 vukosfndk dh vksj ls ,d vkosnu bl vk'k; dk çLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd mlds }kjk çdj.k esa çLrqr leLr nLrkostksa dh çfr;ka vaxszth ls fgUnh esa :ikUrj.k dj ekaxk x;k gS] ftlds fy, 80@& :- çfr ist pktZ fd;k tk jgk gS ,oa vukosfndk bruh jkf'k ogu djus esa vleFkZ gS] blfy, vukosfndk dks mDr nkos ds fgUnh :ikUrj.k djokus ds fy, vkosnd ls mfpr jde fnyokà tk,A vkosnu i= dh udy vkosnd vf/koDrk dks çnku dh xÃA mHk;i{kksa dks lquk dj çdj.k ds fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fnukad 22-6-2012 dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk Li"V vkns'k fd;k x;k gS fd vukosfndk Hkfo"; esa ;fn dksà Hkh vkosnu vaxszth Hkk"kk esa çLrqr djrh gS rks mlh ds lkFk mldk vf/kd`r fgUnh vuqokn Hkh izLrqr fd;k tk,A fnukad 22-6-2012 ls vkt fnukad rd vukosfndk dh vksj ls ,slk dgha Hkh fuosnu ugha fd;k x;k fd mls fgUnh vuqokn ds fy, vkosnd ls jkf'k fnykà tk,A vukosfndk }kjk bl vksn'k ds laca/k esa ekuuh; e/;çns'k mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bankSj ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr dh Fkh] tks fujkÑr gks pqdh gS] ftldh çfr bl U;k;ky; dks çkIr gks pqdh gSA mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh xà gSA tgka rd fgUnh vuqokn dk ç'u gS mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks fLFkj j[kk x;k gSA blds ckotwn Hkh vukosfndk dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, vkns'kks dk ikyu u djrs gq, vkt iqu% O;; fnyk, tkus ds vk/kkj ij fgUnh vuqokn çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] blls ;g Li"V gS fd vukosfndk yxkrkj U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dj jgh gSA ,slh fLFkfr es vukosfndk dh vksj ls çLrqr vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 24 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e xq.knks"kksa ij tk, cxSj lO;; fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkosnd dh vksj ls çLrqr vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lhihlh dk tokc vukosfndk dh vksj ls çLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ;g Hkh bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh Li"V vogsyuk gSA vr% vkosnd vf/koDrk dks muds }kjk çLrqr vkosnu ij xq.knks"kksa ds laca/k essa lquk x;kA vukosfndk ds vf/koDrk dks iwNk x;k fd D;k mUgsa bl ckjs esa dqN dguk gS rks mUgksaus flj fgykdj uk dk b'kkjk fd;kA vkosnd dh vksj ls çLrqr vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lhihlh esa vkosnd us ftu rF;ksa dk vfHkdFku la’kks/ku ds ek/;e ls djuk pkgk gS] og rF; izdj.k ds okLrfod fujkdj.k ,oa fookfnr fcUnqvksa ds fujkdj.k ds fy, vko’;d gSA vr% vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vknsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd rhu fnol ds vanj vkosnd okafNr la’kks/ku dk lekos’k vius ewy vkosnu esa djsA vukosfndk ;fn dksbZ ifj.kketud la’kks/ku djuk pkgs rks vkxkeh fu;r fnukad ij bl laca/k esa la’kks/ku gsrq vkosnu fgUnh Hkk”kk esa izLrqr djsaA izdj.k okLrs ifj.kketud la’kks/ku ,oa vfrfjDr okniz’u fu/kkZj.k fnukad 20-11-2012 dks is’k gksA ¼vkj-ds- tSu½ iz/kku U;k;k/kh’k iquLFk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vkns’kkuqlkj la’kksf/kr dj izekf.kr djk;kA 15. The petitioner has thereafter submitted Hindi Translation of the document and for the fourth time ie., on 29/1/2013, the petitioner has submitted an application and the Presiding Officer has dismissed the application on the ground that earlier applications u/Ss. 24 and 26 have been dismissed and, therefore, the question of entertaining this 4th application does not arise. 16. This Court has carefully gone through the order dt. 5/7/2011 and 28/4/2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore and the order dt. 28/9/2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 4978 / 2012 as well as the order dt. 6/12/2012 and the impugned order dt. 21/2/2013. It is really strange that the wife has not been heard on merits at any point of time by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. By adopting a very hypertechnical approach, the Principal Judge has passed the impugned order. 17. In the present case, as already submitted earlier, the wife is facing divorce proceedings since 2007. Her application was treated to be dismissed on 5/7/2011 as she was proceeded ex-parte. Her second application, an application for recalling of the order dt. 5/7/11 was again dismissed on a technical ground, her third application was dismissed on 6/11/2012 on the ground that she has not submitted a Hindi Translation and earlier in the past two applications have been rejected. The fourth application has been dismissed by taking shelter of the principles of resjudicata and by holding that earlier three applications have been dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, meaning thereby, she has never been heard on merits, at any point of time. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under : 11. Res judicata. - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation I- The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation I- The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. [Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.] 19. Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under : 24. Section 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under : 24. Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be. 26. Custody of children - In any proceeding under this Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such, orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as, might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made. Provided that the application with respect to the maintenance and education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent. 20. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 restrains the Court to try any subsequent suit or issue in which the matter is directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties which has been heard finally and decided by such Court. 21. 20. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 restrains the Court to try any subsequent suit or issue in which the matter is directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties which has been heard finally and decided by such Court. 21. Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for support to be given by the earning spouse in favour of the spouse facing divorce proceedings during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court. The Courts are required to take into consideration the income of the parties before deciding the quantum of maintenance. The paying capacity and various other factors have to be taken into account while deciding the application on merits u/S. 24. Similarly, Section 26 also empowers the Court to decide the application with respect to the maintenance and education of minor children pending the proceedings for obtaining such a divorce. Thus, in short, the aim and object of the aforesaid statutory provision is to ensure that the application preferred by wife u/S. 24 read with Sec. 26 are to be decided in accordance with law and as early as possible and even the time limit has been framed ie., the time limit of 60 days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband. 22 The present case is a shocking example of delay in deciding an application u/S. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. None of the applications preferred by the wife have been heard finally and decided on merits by the Family Court, Indore. The first application has been dismissed by treating the wife as ex-parte and the subsequent applications have been dismissed by treating them as barred by the principles of res-judicata. 23. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment relied upon by Mr. P. K. Saxena, learned senior counsel and has also carefully gone through paragraph 18 on which heavy reliance was placed upon by the learned senior counsel in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra). It is certainly a well settled proposition of law that principles of res – judicata applies in different stages of the same proceedings. P. K. Saxena, learned senior counsel and has also carefully gone through paragraph 18 on which heavy reliance was placed upon by the learned senior counsel in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra). It is certainly a well settled proposition of law that principles of res – judicata applies in different stages of the same proceedings. However, the fact remains that the lis between the parties, in the present case, has never been heard finally and decided on merits at any point of time, and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principles of res-judicata, are not attracted in the present case, keeping in view the fact that the intent and object of the provisions of Sec. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are to provide financial assistance to the spouse facing divorce proceedings and the learned Judge was required to decide the applications u/S. 24 and 26, on merits. It, therefore, inevitably follows that the learned Presiding Officer has erred in law and facts by passing the impugned order dt. 21/2/2013 on the ground that the earlier applications have been dismissed. 24. Learned senior counsel, relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) has prayed for throwing out the petitioner, at this stage. It has been argued that misstatement of fact has been made by the petitioner. 25. In the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), a person has relinquished his rights in respect of the property by executing the lease deed and the apex Court has held the non production of and non mentioning of a release deed at the trial was amounting to playing fraud upon the court. Whereas, in the present case, no such contingency is involved, no fraud of any kind has taken place in the matter. The wife has made all possible attempts to furnish all minute details in respect of the property owned by the husband and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the wife cannot be thrown out, as prayed by the husband in the present case. 26. This Court has also very carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of C. V. Rajendran and another Vs. N. M. Muhammed Kunhi reported in (AIR 2003 SD 649). 26. This Court has also very carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of C. V. Rajendran and another Vs. N. M. Muhammed Kunhi reported in (AIR 2003 SD 649). In the aforesaid case it has been held that the principles of res – judicata applies at every stage and an issue which has become final, cannot be permitted to be reagitated again and again at the subsequent stage of the suit. In the present case, the issue has never been decided finally. There is no order on merits and therefore, the judgment relied upon is again of no help to the respondents. Not only this, even if it is assumed that earlier application preferred u/ Ss. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have been dismissed, the fact remains that maintenance has to be paid every month and every month cause of action is arising in the present case and, therefore, on technicalities by accepting the objection of the husband who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, the Principal Judge, Family Court has erred in law and facts while rejecting the application of the wife preferred u/Ss. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 27. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for maintenance pendente-lite. The framers of law have kept in mind the financial status of a spouse facing divorce proceedings. The law relating to matrimonial cases has included all statutory provisions to provide payment of maintenance to the wife and expenses of proceedings by the husband to the wife. The wife cannot be left on street without any income and an application for grant of maintenance has to be decided keeping in view various factors like income of the husband, whether the wife has independent and sufficient income and the Court also exercises a vide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendente-lite but the discretion cannot be arbitrary and whimsical. In this case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has failed to exercise his jurisdiction keeping in view Sec. 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The applications have never been decided on merits by taking into account the rival contentions of the parties. As already stated earlier, hypertechnical view has been adopted, neither interim maintenance to the wife nor the maintenance to the children has been awarded at any point of time. 28. The applications have never been decided on merits by taking into account the rival contentions of the parties. As already stated earlier, hypertechnical view has been adopted, neither interim maintenance to the wife nor the maintenance to the children has been awarded at any point of time. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding a case ie., Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma reported in 2000) 4 SCC 266, in paragraphs 9 and 10 has held as under : 9. Respondent before us has not appeared instead of notice to him. We have heard the arguments of the wife ex parte. On February 28, 2000 an application was filed by the appellant for placing on record additional documents which are all of the period after filing of this appeal. No notice has been given to the respondent of this application. The purpose of the application appears to be to further enhance the amount of maintenance taking into account the charged circumstances as the salary of the respondent-husband is stated to have increased by passage of time. Various documents like receipts for payment of school fees buying of books school bags etc. have been filed. We are not inclined to permit this application at this stage. If circumstances have changed for enhancement of maintenance appellant can approach the Family Court again as an order under Section 26 of the Act is never final and decree passed thereunder is always subject to modification. 10. Maintenance has not been defined in the Act or between the parents whose duty it is to maintain the children. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Minority and Guardanship Act, 1956, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 constitute a law in a coded form for the Hindus. Unless there is anything repugnant to the context definition of a particular word could be lifted from any of the four Acts constituting the law to interpret a certain provision. All these Acts are to be read in conjunction with one another and interpreted accordingly. We can, therefore go to Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the 'Maintenance Act') to understand the meaning of the 'maintenance'. All these Acts are to be read in conjunction with one another and interpreted accordingly. We can, therefore go to Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the 'Maintenance Act') to understand the meaning of the 'maintenance'. In Clause (b) of Section 3 of this Act "maintenance includes (i) in all cases, provisions for food, clothing residence, education and medical attendance and treatment; (ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage." and under Clause (c) "minor means a person who has not completed his or her age of eighteen years." Under Section 18 of Maintenance Act a Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. This is of course subject to certain conditions with which we are not concerned. Section 20 provides for maintenance of children and aged parents. Under this Section a Hindu is bound, during his or her life time, to maintain his or her children. A minor child so long as he is minor can claim maintenance from his or her father or mother. Section 20 is, therefore, to be contrasted with Section 18. Under this Section it is as much the obligation of the father to maintain a minor child as that of the mother. It is not the law that how affluent mother may be it is the obligation only of the father to maintain the minor. 29 The apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that even if a decree has been passed by a Family Court fixing a particular amount in respect of maintenance of children, the spouse is not precluded from filing a fresh application for enhancement of the amount, meaning thereby, in such cases, principles of res-judicata will not be attracted and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that by no stretch of imagination, in the present case, the principles of res-judicata are applicable. 30. Resultantly, the impugned order dt. 21/2/2013 is set aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore is directed to decide the application dt. 29/1/2013 on merits in respect of grant of maintenance to the wife as well as in respect of children, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21/2/2013 is set aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore is directed to decide the application dt. 29/1/2013 on merits in respect of grant of maintenance to the wife as well as in respect of children, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed with a costs of Rs.10,000/- to be borne by the respondents.