MEETA SALANI Vs. RAVIKANT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, is di rected against the judgment and order dated 04-12-2006, passed by Principal Family Judge, Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 284 of 2005, whereby suit for return of Stridhan filed by the plaintiff is dis missed by said court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in the earlier round of litigation, Ravikant Sharma (husband/present respondent), filed suit No. 79 of 2002, for decree of divorce against Meeta Salani (present plaintiff/appellant ). Said suit was dis missed by the trial court vide order dated 06-11 -2003. The husband (present re spondent) challenged the judgment and or der of the trial court by filing First Appeal No. 8 of 2003, which was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16-02-2005. Said order whereby the appeal is disposed of, reads as under : "shri Ravi Kant Sharma, appellant and Smt. Meeta Sharma, Qpp. Party i. e. Husband and Wife appeared be fore this Court in person alongwith their respective counsel and both the parties made a statement jointly that if Rs. 3. 00 lacs be paid to Smt. Meeta Sharma by Shri Ravi Kant Sharma within two months as per manent alimony, the appeal may be disposed of and decree of divorce may be passed in terms of one time settlement. The parties also agreed that the child Master Ananya Sharma shall remain with the mother but the father would be allowed to visit whenever he de sires. For the child, the father shall pay Rs. 1,0001- per month for his education till he attains the age of majority. In the light of the aforesaid terms, the parties agree that the appeal may be disposed of. The appeal is disposed of accord ingly. The decree of divorce shall be prepared by the Family Court con cerned in terms of said compromise. A copy of this order may be sent to the Family Court concerned to pass a decree of divorce in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- Sdj- (J. C. S. Rawat) (P. C. Verma, J.)"

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the earlier suit in which de cree was granted was instituted by the husband and not by the wife. While the present suit is filed by wife. As such, it cannot be said that the provision of Or der If Rule 2 gets attracted to the present case. Sub-section (3) of Rule 2 of Order II of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requires that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs but if he so omits, except with the leave of the court to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Since in the present case, wife was not the plaintiff in the suit filed earlier there is no question of hold ing that the subsequent suit filed by her is not maintainable as the cause of action arisen to husband was different to the cause of action arisen to wife.