Subsequent Matrimonial Petition Not Barred, If Based On Fresh Cause Of Action: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently held that subsequent petitions in a matrimonial proceeding are not barred if there is a fresh cause of action.
The bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar addressed the questions of trust law and limitation in matrimonial litigation, affirming the rights of a wife to recover misappropriated gold and monetary assets from her estranged husband.
The Court held that the subsequent petition was not barred in matrimonial proceedings under Order IX Rule 9 and Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) following the dismissal of an earlier petition . It distinguished the cause of action in the second petition—citing post-dismissal incidents of cruelty and fresh factual grounds—as distinct from the earlier proceeding, which had been withdrawn following a temporary reconciliation. The Court reaffirmed that fresh causes of action can justify new litigation even if earlier proceedings were dismissed for default.
“Termination of a previous round of litigation by non-prosecution cannot be set up as a bar under Rule 9 of Order IX if the subsequent proceeding is based on a fresh cause of action. While appreciating the question of 'cause of action' for a subsequent matrimonial proceedings, the court must give due consideration to reconciliation efforts made during the litigation, including any instances of reunion that failed to achieve a lasting resolution, leading to the next round of litigation,” bench observed.
The court observed that the object of the above provision is to safeguard the defendant/respondent from being vexed twice, for the same cause of action. “However, if the subsequent proceeding is based on a different cause of action, the bar under sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 is not attracted,” court added.
While dealing with the limitation period, the court relied on Sheela K.K. v. Suresh N.G [ ILR 2020 (4) Ker 486] and held that matrimonial entrustment of property creates a trust, and such a trust is not extinguished merely by dissolution of marriage unless specific conditions under Section 77 of the Indian Trusts Act are met.
“Even when the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, it does not result in the extinguishment of the trust,” the Court added.
The court observed that Section 10 of the Limitation Act begins with a non-obstante clause, and the overriding nature of the non-obstante clause in Section 10 prevails over Section 9, which deals with the continuous running of time.
It was contended that the gold ornaments have been converted into immovable property, and the remedy of the wife is only to proceed against the property so converted. The Court held that the wife could seek monetary recovery and was not limited to tracing the converted property. Citing L. Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer [ AIR 1962 SC 633], the bench noted that remedies under Section 63 of the Trusts Act are not exhaustive, and monetary recovery remains a viable option.
“Section 23 of the Trust Act provides for liability for breach of trust. In terms of the Section, in the case of the breach of trust, the trustee is liable to make good the loss sustained by the beneficiary unless the breach was induced by the fraud of the beneficiary or if the beneficiary had concurred in the breach without coercion or undue influence upon him. It has to be borne in mind that there would be instances where the converted property is of lesser value. It cannot be said that the beneficiary will have to be satisfied with the same,” the court remarked.
The court upheld the trial court's decree of divorce and award. Thus, the appeals were dismissed.
Case Title - Beatrice v Babu Louis
Case No - Mat. Appeal 864/2015
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Counsel for Appellant - Tom Jose, Geetha Job
Counsel for Respondent - Arun V G, R Ram Mohan, Anoop Bhaskar.