Principle Of Res-Judicata Not Applicable To Reliefs Of Alimony, Stridhan Which Can Be Claimed At Any Subsequent Stage: Rajasthan High Court

Applying the Golden Rule for purposive interpretation of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the Doctrine of Res Judicata is not applicable on the reliefs of permanent alimony and stridhan as provided in the provision. In doing so the court underlined that res judicata is not applicable since the reliefs sought under Section 25 could be claimed "at any subsequent stage" as well and could be granted by any Court having jurisdiction under the Act. By way of this ruling the high court underscored that when it comes to welfare provisions like Section 25, the golden rule of interpretation ensures that laws designed to "uplift vulnerable populations are applied in a way that reflects their true intent". The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman in its order said that Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act (pertaining to Permanent alimony and maintenance) was a social welfare legislation for securing the rights of women and thus it was Court's duty to advance this cause of social justice by interpreting it in light of its purpose."The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India...Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society," it underscored. Referring to the language of Section 25 the high court held that since it used the phrase “or at any time subsequent thereto”, it was not a static provision. The Court ruled that the two phrases “at the time of passing any decree” and “or at any time subsequent thereto” were connected by a disjunctive (or) and not a conjunctive (and) and thus both had to be read independently along with the remaining wordings of the Section. "..a disjunctive reading of Section 25, empowers any court having jurisdiction under the Act of 1955 to grant the relief of permanent alimony to the wife, in turn is in line with the legislative intent," the court underlined. The Court further referred to Section 19 of the Act which laid down the court to which petition under the Act shall be presented and said that it included the District Court of where the wife was residing, adding that the "legislative intent underscoring the aforementioned provisions is to enable a wife to claim reliefs at the place of her residence and to not make her run from pillar to post in the search of fundamental reliefs which are bestowed to her under the Act". Hence, the Court held that a disjunctive reading of Section 25 coupled with Section 19 would enable the Court in Udaipur to grant permanent alimony to the appellant instead of making her run from one court to another especially when alimony was required for her basic sustenance.“procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. Merely due to technical difficulties, a woman should not be made to run from pillar to post… When procedural law is interpreted with excessive rigidity, it risks overshadowing the fundamental purpose of justice—ensuring fairness and equity in the resolution of disputes. Strict adherence to procedural rules, without considering the underlying principles of justice, can lead to outcomes where technicalities outweigh substantive rights, leaving parties without meaningful recourse," the court said. It was stated that it was appropriate to employ the rule of Golden Interpretation as per which if an ordinary meaning of a provision lead to an illogical outcome, contrary to the legislature's intent, the Court may deviate from literal meaning and adopt a "more sensible construction".Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse in which it was held:“Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasised that the courts have to adopt different approaches in “social Justice adjudication”…as mere “adversarial approach” may not be very appropriate…social context judging' is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence…where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice…In such a situation, the Judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice”. Observing that process becomes an end when procedural law is interpreted rigidly the court said, "Therefore, the argument vis-a-vis the invocation and applicability of the Doctrine of Res Judicata is not applicable on the reliefs of permanent alimony and stridhan as the reliefs under Section 25 can be claimed by way of an application at any subsequent stage as well and any court having jurisdiction under the Act can grant the same, thereby entitling the appellant in the present case to seek permanent alimony".BackgroundThe court...

Principle Of Res-Judicata Not Applicable To Reliefs Of Alimony, Stridhan Which Can Be Claimed At Any Subsequent Stage: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Principle Of Res-Judicata Not Applicable To Reliefs Of Alimony, Stridhan Which Can Be Claimed At Any Subsequent Stage: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers