**1** IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.7699/2009 Anshuman R. Banerjee. ....Petitioner -VERSUS- Romi Anshuman Banerjee. ....Respondent ........... Mr.J.M.Puranik, Advocate for the Petitioner. ........... CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. Dated 14th October, 2009. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner/husband has challenged the order passed by the Trial Court pending a suit filed by the Respondent/wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. An application was made by the Petitioner/husband praying for framing an additional issue based on the contention that the Petitioner will suffer from double jeopardy in respect of the issue framed on entitlement of the Respondent to claim “stri-dhan” in view of the principles enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in fact the Petitioner intended to canvass that the principles of res-judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will apply and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have moulded the prayer and framed an appropriate issue. 4 After having considered the submissions of the learned **2** counsel for the Petitioner, I find that the prayer made by the Petitioner was mis-conceived. Only prayer made in the application which is rejected under the impugned order is that an issue may be framed as to whether the Petitioner will suffer double jeopardy in view of the principles enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is absolutely no error in the view taken by the Trial Court. Petition is rejected. [A.S. OKA, J.] kps