MOHINDER KAUR Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties were married onl0.ll.73. Soon after disputes arose. Wife found that husband was already married in 1966. She filed petition u/.Ss II, 12 & 13(1)(IA) and prayed for 3 reliefs, (a) Decree of nullity as husband's previous wife was living (b). Decree of nullity for fraud by concealing previous marriage, (c) Decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Trial Court found that previous marriage was dissolved on 23.3. 72 and refused first two reliefs. He however granted her decree on the ground of fraud. She filed an appeal against the relief refused. [ After giving above facts, para 6 onwards is : ]

(2.) At the very thresh hold a preliminary objection has been raised. It is that the appeal is not maintainable. The wife made 3 prayers in the alternative. In prayer (a) & (b) she asked for a decree of nullity. In prayer (c) she sought a decree of divorce. The decree of divorce has been given to her. What grievance can she have now ? And no one can appeal unless he or she is aggrieved. The choice of reliefs is always with the plaintiff. He is the dominus litus. He is the master of litigation. He can ask for more than one relief. He can ask for independent relief or reliefs in the alternative. In alternative relief if the court trying the suit grants him one relief then it follows that he has got what he sought. He cannot agitate the matter further in the appellate court and ask for the relief denied to him which as already stated he only asked in the alternative. 'Alternative' is an expression which indicates a choice of the person and if that choice is once exercised by him, he cannot afterwards blow hot and cold and also ask for the other alternative relief. To allow him to agitate the matter even though he has exercised the choice of asking for reliefs in the alternative is to encourge litigation. In my opinion the wife is seeking to approbate which she cannot do.

(3.) In Duxters ' Limited v. Hill Crest Oil (1926) I.K.B. 348 (358). Scrutton L.J. said : "So in my opinion, you cannot take the benefit to a judgment as being good and then appeal against it as being bad. It startles me to hear it argued that a person can say the judgment is wrong and at the same time accept the payment under the judgment as being right."