ishwar Vs. Ramkanyabai

- 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. .....to his wife (respondent here) has been dismissed;2. brief story of the case is that the respondent filed an application before the trial court that she is unable to maintain herself and the non-applicant (petitioner here) refused to maintain her. it appears that during the pendency of the maintenance application, this petitioner performed a second marriage. this fact was taken into consideration on an application made by the wife-respondent. the revision against the said order was filed by the petitioner, that too has been dismissed as referred above. hence, this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. there is a bar of second revision, and the bar of second revision cannot be circumvented by filing a petition under section 482 cr.p.c. so far as the grant of maintenance allowance is concerned, that cannot be objected by way of this petition. reference may be had to the case reported in 1990 supreme court case p. 132.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, respondent has been granted maintenance allowance from the date of the order of the lower court. this petitioner was paying interim maintenance allowance from november 1988. this fact has been brought to the notice of the revisional court. but the revisional court did not give any decision on it. the objection about the adjustment of amount can be taken before the execution court i. e. the court which granted maintenance allowance. it appears that this objection was not taken before the executing court, and it was for that reason that the revisional court did not give any decision on it. i hope and trust that if this objection is taken before the executing court, the matter with all its facts shall be taken into consideration and shall be decided according to law.4. subject to the above observation, this petition is dismissed, without notice to the other side.