Deepak Kumar Vs. Murari Lal

.....societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - is maintainable, even if that ex parte decree is set aside and to quote the hon'ble judges of the apex count even though the good days with the newly married wife did not last long as the first wife succeeded in getting the ex parte decree set aside.amar saran, j.1. heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned a.g.a. appearing for the state.list has been revised. counsel for the opposite party is absent.in this case, it appears that the applicant got an ex parte order of divorce from his wife on 14.8.1986. the decree was prepared on 3.9.1986. it appears that on 24.2.1988 he contracted a second marriage with smt. munni devi. on 3.11.1989 a complaint was filed against the applicant and others on he basis of which only the applicant was summoned under section 494,1.p.c. by the order dated 30.5.1990. it appears that on 18.9.1990, the first wife sandhya daughter of the complainant murari lal was successful in getting the ex parte decree of divorce set aside. the question is whether the complaint against the applicant under section 494,1.p.c. could proceed.2. the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of krishna gopal divedi v. prabha divedi, reported in 2004 scc (cri) 473, wherein it has been squarely held that if an accused contracts a second marriage after an ex parte decree of divorce, no complaint under section 494,1.p.c. is maintainable, even if that ex parte decree is set aside and to quote the hon'ble judges of the apex count even though the good days with the newly married wife did not last long as the first wife succeeded in getting the ex parte decree set aside. in view of this decision of the apex court, i have no option but to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicant in criminal case no. 726 of 1990 under section 494, i.p.c. pending in the court of a.c.j.m. ii, gorakhpur.the application is allowed as above.