Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 9, S. 13(1)(i-a) — Rejection of Plaint — Res Judicata — Ex-parte decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Subsequent petition for Divorce on ground of cruelty — Maintainability — Husband obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights — Wife subsequently filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty — Husband filed an application under O. 7 R. 11(d) read with S. 11 CPC seeking rejection of the wife’s petition as barred by res judicata — Held, the reliefs sought, the issues framed, and the matters to be adjudicated in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 and a petition for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are distinct and divergent — An ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty — Application under O. 7 R. 11(d) rightly dismissed by Family Court.

advocatemmmohan

2025 NC: 2025:KHC:26167

(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU)

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.

Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2025 (GM-FC), D/- 15-7-2025.

Utkarsh Malik

vs.

Kusum Singh (Alias Kusum Malik)

HEADNOTES

(A) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7, Rule 11(d), S. 11 — Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), S. 9, S. 13(1)(i-a) — Rejection of Plaint — Res Judicata — Ex-parte decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Subsequent petition for Divorce on ground of cruelty — Maintainability — Husband obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights — Wife subsequently filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty — Husband filed an application under O. 7 R. 11(d) read with S. 11 CPC seeking rejection of the wife’s petition as barred by res judicata — Held, the reliefs sought, the issues framed, and the matters to be adjudicated in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 and a petition for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are distinct and divergent — An ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty — Application under O. 7 R. 11(d) rightly dismissed by Family Court.

(Paras 3, 10)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), S. 11 — Res Judicata — Cause of Action — Restitution of Conjugal Rights vs. Divorce on Ground of Cruelty — Distinction — Husband contended that the cause of action for both proceedings arose on the date of marriage and the date the wife left the matrimonial home, thus hitting the subsequent divorce suit by res judicata — Held, the contention is unsustainable — While a petition for restitution of conjugal rights centers on withdrawal from society without reasonable excuse, a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty involves multiple, distinct factual instances constituting cruelty — The cause of action and issues directly and substantially in dispute in both proceedings have no nexus — Principles of res judicata are inapplicable.

(Para 10)

Cases Referred:

1. State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. M/s National Construction Company, Bombay and Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2367 (Referenced) — Para 4

2. Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646 (Referenced) — Para 5

3. C. Sarala v. K. Nalinakshan, AIR 1991 Ker 362 (Referenced) — Para 5

4. Balveer Singh v. Harjeet Kaur, AIR 2017 Uttarakhand 175 (Relied on) — Paras 7, 10