The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita & Anr. vs Vijay Pal @ Mohd. Sabir & Anr. consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expounded that whenever a party claims a change in circumstance after an order granting maintenance has been passed u/s 125 CrPC., the appropriate recourse, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial court, would be a petition u/s 127 CrPC and not a fresh petition u/s 125 CrPC.
Facts
This Revision Petition was filed challenging the impugned order and praying to set aside the same whereby maintenance application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that on the date of filing of the present petition before the learned Trial Court, she was entitled to file a fresh petition as there was a fresh cause of action. It was also contended that on the date of filing the present petition before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner was not receiving any maintenance as ordered earlier. So, the principle of res judicata was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Respondent: It was contended that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order as it was passed as per law. It was also contended that once the application for maintenance has been adjudicated upon merits, the only relief one can seek is u/s 127 CrPC and that no fresh cause of action can be stated to have accrued entitling the petitioner to file the fresh petition.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that once an application has been filed under Section 125 and a maintenance amount has been granted, an application u/s 127 CrPC can be filed to claim alteration of the maintenance so awarded owing to change in circumstance. It also noted that:
“a petition u/s 125 CrPC will be covered by the principle of res judicata due to its universal applicability, as proceedings u/s 125 CrPC are quasi-criminal in nature. Once the petition has been adjudicated u/s 125 CrPC favourably by a Court of competent jurisdiction on merits, a subsequent petition cannot be preferred which arises from the same dispute having similar situations, circumstances and grounds as the previously adjudicated issues in the earlier petition filed u/s 125 CrPC.”
It noted that whenever a party claims a change in circumstance after an order granting maintenance has been passed u/s 125 CrPC., the appropriate recourse, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial court, would be a petition u/s 127 CrPC and not a fresh petition u/s 125 CrPC:
“Taking contrary view will be against the principle of res judicata which is to give finality to the litigation and ensure that no one is vexed twice in a litigation based on one and the same cause.”
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the matter in question in this case had been conclusively determined on merit. So, for seeking any further relief in case of change in circumstances, the petitioner must take recourse to Section 127 CrPC. The present revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
Case: Sunita & Anr. vs Vijay Pal @ Mohd. Sabir & Anr.
Citation: CRL.REV. P. 161/2018
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decided on: 18th August 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
