Smt. Surekha Vs. Dilip Devidas

- 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. r.d. shukla, j.1. revision is directed against the order dated 8.10.1997 of the 9th addl. distt. judge, indore passed in h.m. case no. 275/96 whereby applicant's (wife) application for staying the proceedings here at indore, has been rejected.2. there is no dispute on the point that applicant-wife has filed a suit for divorce in the court of civil judge (senior division) kopargaon (maharashtra). the suit was filed on 11.3.1996.non-applicant/husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of addl. distt. judge, indore on 16.7.1996. after service of summons applicant (wife) filed application under section 10 cpc for staying the proceedings at indore. learned addl. distt. judge has rejected the application and refused to stay the proceedings. hence this revision petition.3. contention of applicant is that petition filed by her (wife) is prior in time and the grounds raised would be almost same in both the petitions and therefore, the suit filed at indore ought to have been stayed.4. as against it learned counsel for non-applicant has submitted that the relief claimed in both the cases are different and therefore, the court was justified in not staying the proceedings. this court has considered the rival contentions of both the parties.5. the defence that can be taken in a case of divorce will be a ground of attack in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. it is desirable that a contradictory judgment by two courts should always be avoided.6. since the petition filed at kopargaon is first in time, the suit filed subse- quently deserves to be stayed.7. the revision petition is, therefore, accepted. the impugned order is set aside. application for stay filed by applicant (wife) is accepted. the suit filed subsequently at indore shall remain stayed till the disposal of the petition at kopargaon (maharashtra).in the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost.