1983 (10) TMI 289 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Doctrine of precedent and its binding nature.
2. Restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Validity of the Full Bench decision in Smt. Kailash Wati v. Avodhia Parkash.
4. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution in the context of personal laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Doctrine of Precedent and Its Binding Nature:
The central issue in this case is the binding nature of judicial precedents. The judgment emphasizes that the doctrine of precedent is a cornerstone of the justice system, ensuring uniformity and certainty in the law. The court highlighted that precedents must be followed to maintain judicial decorum and legal propriety. It cited Blackstone's Commentaries and various English and Indian judgments to underscore that a single judge or a division bench is bound by the decisions of a Full Bench or superior courts, unless specific conditions for reconsideration are met.

2. Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
The case originated from a petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant-wife had withdrawn from the husband's society without any reasonable excuse, despite multiple requests and legal notices. The trial court found that the couple's inability to live together due to their separate employments was against the basic concept of marriage, which requires both spouses to live together and discharge matrimonial obligations. Consequently, the trial court granted a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the husband.

3. Validity of the Full Bench Decision in Smt. Kailash Wati v. Avodhia Parkash:
The appellant-wife's counsel challenged the trial court's decision by questioning the Full Bench ruling in Smt. Kailash Wati's case. The learned single judge, before whom the appeal was initially placed, differed from the Full Bench's reasoning and suggested reconsideration by a larger bench. However, the present judgment reaffirmed that the Full Bench's decision was binding and could not be reconsidered merely because a new argument was raised. The court emphasized that a precedent is binding unless it has been overruled by a superior court or rendered per incuriam.

4. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution in the Context of Personal Laws:
The appellant's counsel argued that the Full Bench decision should be reconsidered on the grounds of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality. This argument was not raised before the Full Bench. The court rejected this contention, stating that the binding nature of a precedent does not depend on whether every possible argument was considered in the original decision. The court cited previous Supreme Court judgments to support this view, emphasizing that the finality of binding precedents must not be undermined by new arguments.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Full Bench decision in Smt. Kailash Wati's case was binding on the learned single judge. Therefore, the reference for reconsideration was unnecessary. The case was sent back to the single bench for a decision on the merits in accordance with the law laid down in Smt. Kailash Wati's case. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to judicial precedents to maintain consistency and stability in the legal system.