HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6802 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. The case called out in the revised list. Nobody is present to press the application and no request for adjournment of the case has been made. In these circumstances, the Court proceeds to decide the petition by examining its record. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 11, Pratapgarh in Matrimonial Case No. 1199/2022, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Section 11 CPC, on the ground that earlier the opposite party-plaintiff had filed Regular Suit No. 791 of 2009, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which had been decided exparte on 18.09.2019 and, therefore, the second suit is barred by the principles of res judicata, has been rejected. 3. The plaintiff-opposite party filed objection against the application stating that earlier the petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was decided on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties as per which the plaintiff-opposite party was required to pay Rs. 4 lakh in one lump-sum as settlement amount. Thereafter, the parties filed a suit under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act but later on, the petitioner did not appear in the said suit and the suit was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, Maneesh Kumar Chaube Counsel for Respondent(s) : Suman Mishra .....Petitioner(s) The Court Of Addl. Prin. Judge Family Court Court No. 11 Pratapgarh And Another .....Respondent(s) dismissed. 4. The family court held that earlier the parties had filed a suit under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act but later on the petitioner's wife did not appear in the suit. The petitioner's wife has deserted the opposite party-husband since the year 2009 and the desertion continues even after filing and dismissal of the suit under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. This suit does not make any mention of the grounds taken earlier and no determination has been made in the earlier suit. 5. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 11 CPC do not bar the subsequent suit. 6. For attracting the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC, it is necessary that the suit should involve issues which were involved in an earlier suit and the earlier suit had been heard and finally decided by the Court. In the present case, no final decision has been given in any earlier suit. The issues raised in R.S. No. 1199 of 2022 were not involved in the previous suit. 7. In these circumstances, the family court has rightly rejected the application under Section 11 of the CPC. 8. In absence of any error or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, the petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. December 1, 2025 Pradeep/- A227 No. 6802 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench