Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. This is once again an innuendo about the character of the Petitioner. Therefore the petitioner who had represented before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier proceedings that he is not pressing his allegation of adultery is continuing to inflict mental agony upon the petitioner/wife as seen from the extract supra.

15. The cause of action that has been pleaded by the respondent herein is nothing but an astute drafting wherein the respondent is trying to introduce a case of desertion from 05.08.1999 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed an earlier petition so as to create a cause of action for the present petition. As already stated the allegations that have been made by the respondent in his petition, subject matter of this Revision, is nothing but a reiteration of the allegations made in the earlier petition which justifies the petitioner living away from the respondent. Further the respondent in the present petition has not made out any case that after the dismissal of the earlier Original Petition or that when the the earlier petition was pending steps had been taken by him to bring back the Petitioner into the matrimonial fold and she has refused, thereby giving him the right to state that the wife has deserted him by deliberately keeping away from his company. It is also seen that the petitioner after the disposal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and before the filing of this Original Petition in 2006 had taken out two applications for divorce, which however did not get numbered, which clearly exposes the fact that the respondent had no intention of resuming his marital life with the petitioner and therefore it does not lie in his mouth contend that the petitioner has deserted him. This factum is clear from the petition handed over across the bar by the counsel for the petitioner which is dated 18th September 2003 in which the cause of action pleaded is that the petitioner had deserted the respondent from 10.09.1979. Therefore it is very clear that the present petition is only a reiteration of the allegations made in the earlier petition for divorce. This is clearly a case of old wine in a new bottle. Therefore it is clear that only intention of the petitioner is to relitigate.

18. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India therefore cannot over look the abuse of process of court by the respondent and if this is over looked, it would amount to this Court abdicating its duty in ensuring that the petitioner/wife does not suffer the agony of once again going through the agony of a trial, which she had in the earlier proceedings for a period of over 20 years.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 1998 3 SCC 573 (K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi) when dealing with a case of relitigation has observed as follows:

One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to Justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, as a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Frivoulous or vexations proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of public nd the Court from being wasted.

22. In another judgement reported in 2005 (4) L.W. 206 (The Member Concern Department of Post, Government of India Vs Ms.Annapoorni and others) this Court has observed  One of the examples cited as an abuse of process of the Court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to Justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But, if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of process of the Court.