Umashankar Vs. Mayadevi

Umashankar vs Mayadevi

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 26, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/502906

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/502906
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.R. Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Oct 26, 1993
Case Number: C.R. 334 of 1992
Subject: Family;Civil
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all...

Key legal issue: Family;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 6, Rule 17

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umashankar

Advocate R.S. Tiwari, Adv.

Respondent

Mayadevi

Advocate Subhada Waghmare, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 6, Rule 17
Reported In: I(1994)DMC450

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - 6. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below erred in rejecting the application and thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law. 7. it is well established that the revisional jurisdiction is little and limited and no order can be reversed unless the conditions enumerated under section 115 of the code are satisfied......the order dated 25.8.92 passed by the third addl. judge to the court of district judge, ujjain in hindu marriage case no. 70-a/90 thereby substantially rejecting the application moved under order 6 rule ) 7 of the code.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband (the petitioner) filed the petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. the petition was resisted by the non-applicant. on closure of evidence, the petitioner submitted an application under order 6 rule 17of the code seeking leave to amend the application for incorporation of the plea of ailment i.e. epilepsy. the trial court accepted the application only partly, as regards the alteration of 13 to 14 and rejected the remaining portion as contained in the application. aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision.3. this revision petition was admitted for final hearing by this court on 17.9.92.4. by consent of the parties, this revision petition was taken up for final hearing today.5. i have heard shri r.s. trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and smt. subhada waghmare, learned counsel for the non-applicant.6. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below erred in rejecting the application and thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law. on the other band, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the order is just and proper and is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. it was pointed out that the necessary pleading was already present in the main petition and as such, there was no question of permitting the reiteration of the same under the guise of elaboration. the counsel for the petitioner was, thus, unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order rendered by the court below.7. it is well established that the revisional jurisdiction is little and limited and no order can.....

Full Judgment

A.R. Tiwari, J.

1.This revision petition, presented under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the order dated 25.8.92 passed by the Third Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain in Hindu Marriage Case No. 70-A/90 thereby substantially rejecting the application moved under Order 6 Rule ) 7 of the Code.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband (the petitioner) filed the petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The petition was resisted by the non-applicant. On closure of evidence, the petitioner submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17of the Code seeking leave to amend the application for incorporation of the plea of ailment i.e. epilepsy. The Trial Court accepted the application only partly, as regards the alteration of 13 to 14 and rejected the remaining portion as contained in the application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision.

3. This revision petition was admitted for final hearing by this Court on 17.9.92.

4. By consent of the parties, this revision petition was taken up for final hearing today.

5. I have heard Shri R.S. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Subhada Waghmare, learned Counsel for the non-applicant.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below erred in rejecting the application and thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under law. On the other band, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order is just and proper and is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was pointed out that the necessary pleading was already present in the main petition and as such, there was no question of permitting the reiteration of the same under the guise of elaboration. The Counsel for the petitioner was, thus, unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order rendered by the Court below.

7. It is well established that the revisional jurisdiction is little and limited and no order can be reversed unless the conditions enumerated under Section 115 of the Code are satisfied. In this case, there is none.

8. In my view, the application was totally misconceived. It was open to the petitioner to make appropriate prayer for production of additional evidence on showing sufficient cause for the purpose. The order passed on an application for amendment it not liable to be faulted with.

9. In the circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this revision petition as incurred. Counsel fee on each side is fixed at Rs. 200/-, if certified.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1993 Same Parties Umashankar vs Mayadevi Same Subject Family;Civil Same Judge A.R. Tiwari, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1); Code of Civil Proc...

Family;Civil