The applicant/husband’s objection in the order that was earlier challenged (dated August 31, 2024) was denied by the Family Court. The application was then accepted, and a deadline for submitting the objection was set for September 19, 2024.

The applicant-husband sought the High Court to challenge the aforementioned order, citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior.

The judgment of the case around the maintainability of a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. A second application under Section 125 CrPC is maintainable even if the first application was dismissed without adjudicating on merits or without granting liberty to file a fresh plea. This is because such a dismissal does not operate as res judicata.

The single judge began by citing a recent decision from the Supreme Court in Prem Kishore & Ors. v. Brahm Prakash & Ors. In that case, the court held that if a prior suit is dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction, plaintiff default, etc., the decision would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit because it was not based on the merits.

The High Court referred to the principle of a “continuing duty” of a husband to support his wife and children under the law, using the maxim “de die in diem” (doing something every day). It held that failure to do so constitutes a continuing wrong.

The Court also emphasized that changes in circumstances can justify the filing of a second application under Section 125 CrPC. The bench relied on previous judgments, including the Supreme Court’s ruling that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction or for default (such as non-appearance) are not judgments on the merits and thus do not prevent a subsequent suit from being filed.