Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Rekha Bora on 22 May, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010248912018
2025:GAU-AS:6472
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1152/2018
NIRANJAN BORA
S/O. SRI LALIT BORA, VILL. AMTOLA BHELAIBORI, P.O. CHABUKDHARA,
P.S. MIKIRBHETA, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM-782106.
VERSUS
REKHA BORA
W/O. SRI NIRANJAN BORA, D/O. SRI PHATIK DEKA, VILL. PALAHGURI,
MOUZA- UTTARKHOLA, P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM-782410.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR E AHMED, MR. Z HAMMAD,MR. R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M B BARUAH (Legal Aid Counsel)),
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
22.05.2025
Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Ms. M.B. Baruah, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the sole
respondent.
Page No.# 2/4
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the learned
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in M.R. 06/2017.
3. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking maintenance from her husband i.e. the present petitioner. The trial
court granted maintenance of ₹1,000/- each per month to the respondent and her two
daughters.
4. The respondent and her two daughters were not satisfied with the said judgment
and therefore they filed a revision petition being Criminal Revision No.35/2017 in the
court of the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon. The learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon
enhanced maintenance allowance to ₹2,000/- each to the respondent and her two
daughters.
5. It is an admitted fact that before filing of the petition under Section 125 of the
CrPC, being M.R. Case No.06/2017, the respondent had already filed a petition under
Section 125 CrPC, being M.R. Case No.80/2011 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Morigaon. In an ex parte order, that court directed the present petitioner
to pay ₹600/- per month to the respondent and ₹300/- each per month to her two
daughters.
6. Mr. Hammad has submitted that the judgment passed in M.R. Case No.80/2011
is still alive and therefore, the judgment passed in M.R. Case No.06/2017 cannot exist.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has procured
the order of M.R. Case No.06/.2017 by concealing the factum of the existence the
order passed in M.R. Case No.80/2011.
7. Ms. Baruah has submitted that the provision of law as laid down in Section 125
of the CrPC is a beneficial legislation and therefore, the respondent is at liberty to file
multiple petitions under the said provision to seek maintenance for herself and for her
daughters from her husband.
Page No.# 3/4
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
9. Now, the question arises as to whether in the proceedings under Section 125 of
the CrPC, the principles of res judicata will apply or not?
10. In M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
"12. The principles of res judicata are of universal application as they are based on
two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that
it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other
principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn
causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears
to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is
common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a
proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and
conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should forever set the
controversy at rest.
13. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In
the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and
pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious
litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions.
This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata
has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea
of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains
the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty
and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing
court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties."
11. Although the provision of Section 125 (1) of the CrPC is applicable in a criminal
court as defined by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the right that is
decided by the said court is purely civil in nature. It is a settled position of law that the
proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the CrPC is quasi civil and quasi criminal.
This Court is of the opinion that for the aforesaid reasons, the principles of res
judicata will be applicable in a proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC. Therefore,
the proceeding being M.R. Case No.06/2017 is hit by res judicata.
12. For the aforesaid premised reasons, the judgment and order dated 20.11.2017
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon in M.R. 06/2017 is
Page No.# 4/4
quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to act according to the judgment
passed in M.R. 08/2011.
With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
