Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Parveen Arora Vs. Pushpa Arora

Parveen Arora vs Pushpa Arora

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 28, 1990
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/692598

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 1867 of 1990
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

The case examined the settlement by mutual consent in a matrimonial dispute under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - It was held that criminal proceedings pending between the parties were quashed. -

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 406; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1908 - Sections 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parveen Arora

Advocate Girdhar Govind and; M. Pracha, Advs

Respondent

Pushpa Arora

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 406; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1908 - Sections 482
Cases Referred
State vs. Praveen Kumar
Reported In
1991RLR107

Excerpt

the case examined the settlement by mutual consent in a matrimonial dispute under section 482 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 - it was held that criminal proceedings pending between the parties were quashed. - v.b. bansal, j.(1) parveen arora and his mother smt. satya kumari arora by way of this petition u/s 482, cr. p.c. prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings in case fir no. 88/88 state vs. praveen kumar u/s. 406 ipc, p.s. greater kailash pending in the court of shri d.s. punia, mm, new delhi. (2) briefly stated the facts are that praveen arora, petitioner no. 1, was married to smt. pushpa arora, respondent no. 1, on 11.3.74 and there after been living together as husband and wife. they, however, could not pull on for a long time as a result of which they started living separately w.e.f. 8.12.78. there was no rapprochement between husband and wife and consequently a petition for divorce was filed by smt. pushpa arora against her husband. on her complaint case u/s. 406 indian penal code was registered against the petitioners in police station greater kailash being fir no. 88/88 which is now pending in the court of shri d.s. punia. the parties have now settled their disputes and have made statements in the court of shri s.n. dhingra, adj seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. it is, thus, clear that they have settled all their disputes and it would now be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings which were initiated by respondent no. 1 on account of her differences with her husband and mother-in-law are not allowed to continue further.

Full Judgment

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) Parveen Arora and his mother Smt. Satya Kumari Arora by way of this petition u/S 482, Cr. P.C. prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings in case Fir No. 88/88 State vs. Praveen Kumar u/S. 406 Ipc, P.S. Greater Kailash pending in the court of Shri D.S. Punia, Mm, New Delhi.

(2) Briefly stated the facts are that Praveen Arora, petitioner No. 1, was married to Smt. Pushpa Arora, respondent No. 1, on 11.3.74 and there after been living together as husband and wife. They, however, could not pull on for a long time as a result of which they started living separately w.e.f. 8.12.78. There was no rapprochement between husband and wife and consequently a petition for divorce was filed by Smt. Pushpa Arora against her husband. On her complaint case u/S. 406 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners in Police Station Greater Kailash being Fir No. 88/88 which is now pending in the court of Shri D.S. Punia. The parties have now settled their disputes and have made statements in the court of Shri S.N. Dhingra, Adj seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is, thus, clear that they have settled all their disputes and it would now be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings which were initiated by respondent No. 1 on account of her differences with her husband and mother-in-law are not allowed to continue further.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial