Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Shashi Bala

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Shashi Bala

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 21, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/848700

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/848700
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Decided On: Apr 21, 2010
Case Number: Crl.Rev.P. 625/2008 and Crl.M.A. No. 13359/2008 (for delay)
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 125

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Sharma

Advocate Jyotika Kalra and; Sanjay Jha, Advs.

Respondent

Shashi Bala

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 125

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....dated 28th january, 2008 and 30th july, 2008 have been impugned in the present revision petition.7. it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in impugning order dated 28th january, 2008 has arisen on account of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte order. in view of the said explanation, delay in filing of the petition against the order dated 28th january, 2008 is condoned.8. there appears to be some lapse on the part of the petitioner in not following up the petition under section 125 of the code, filed by the respondent after he was served and had entered appearance in january 2005. due to non-appearance, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 22nd november, 2005 and ex parte judgment was passed on 28th january, 2008. there is a gap of nearly two years between the two dates. it appears that the petitioner did not get in touch with his lawyer during this period.9. it is stated that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and expired in october, 2007. it is also stated that the petitioner is a resident of jammu & kashmir and it was not possible for the petitioner to repeatedly come to delhi. learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner will deposit an amount of rs. 35,000/- before the trial court within one month from today without prejudice to his rights and contentions.10. in view of the aforesaid facts and the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in court today, the impugned order dated 30th july, 2008 is set aside and accordingly the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte order dated 22nd november, 2005 is allowed. however, in case the petitioner does not make payment of rs. 35,000/- within one month, the impugned order dated 30th july, 2008 shall be implemented and executed. rs. 35,000/- will be released and paid to the respondent on her entering appearance before the learned.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Respondent was served by publication but has not entered appearance. She is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

2. Petitioner claims that the respondent and the petitioner separated and an ex parte decree of divorce was passed by District Judge, Rajouri (Jammu) on 23rd September, 1987.

3. Subsequently on or about 24th November, 2004, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for short). In the said petition, there is no reference to decree of divorce and the petitioner has been described as her husband. It is further stated that the respondent was residing with her mother who expired in October, 1999 and the said respondent has been living on the mercy of her brothers and sisters and thereafter with some other relatives.

4. The petitioner was served in that petition and had entered appearance through his lawyer, Mr. M.A. Khan, advocate. However, no reply to the petition was filed and the petitioner and his lawyer stopped appearing. By Order dated 22nd November, 2005 the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and by ex-parte Order dated 28th January, 2008, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4000/- p.m. from the date of the said Order. Another direction was issued to the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 2500/- to the respondent towards litigation expenses.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte order which has been dismissed vide Order dated 30th July, 2008.

6. Both Orders dated 28th January, 2008 and 30th July, 2008 have been impugned in the present Revision Petition.

7. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the delay in impugning Order dated 28th January, 2008 has arisen on account of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte order. In view of the said explanation, delay in filing of the Petition against the Order dated 28th January, 2008 is condoned.

8. There appears to be some lapse on the part of the petitioner in not following up the petition under Section 125 of the Code, filed by the respondent after he was served and had entered appearance in January 2005. Due to non-appearance, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 22nd November, 2005 and ex parte judgment was passed on 28th January, 2008. There is a gap of nearly two years between the two dates. It appears that the petitioner did not get in touch with his lawyer during this period.

9. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and expired in October, 2007. It is also stated that the petitioner is a resident of Jammu & Kashmir and it was not possible for the petitioner to repeatedly come to Delhi. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner will deposit an amount of Rs. 35,000/- before the Trial Court within one month from today without prejudice to his rights and contentions.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Court today, the impugned Order dated 30th July, 2008 is set aside and accordingly the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte Order dated 22nd November, 2005 is allowed. However, in case the petitioner does not make payment of Rs. 35,000/- within one month, the impugned Order dated 30th July, 2008 shall be implemented and executed. Rs. 35,000/- will be released and paid to the respondent on her entering appearance before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate subject to final outcome of the Petition.

11. The petitioner will appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 10th May, 2010. Notice, if required, will be issued to the respondent by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

12. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Shashi Bala Same Subject Family Same Judge Sanjiv Khanna, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 125

Family