Mohan Singh Vs. Pawan Kumari - Court Judgment

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. r.d. shukla, j.1. learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal and he will file petition for divorce separately.2. learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has filed cross-objection and therefore the same may be decided. learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent is getting rs. 200/-p.m. only which is insufficient for her maintenance and therefore that may be increased.3. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cross-objection filed by the respondent is time barred.4. on perusal of record it appears that the cross-objection has been filed on 20-3-93. the service of summons on respondent were effected much earlier. learned counsel for the respondent had made a prayer on 7-1-1993 that he shall file cross-objection. it would therefore, assumed that on that day the respondent had definite information about the case, but the cross-objection has been filed on 20-3-1993. thus, the cross-objection appears to be apparently time barred. there is no reason for condonation and the cross objection is therefore dismissed.5. now, so far as the 2nd request of the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, on a query made by the court the appellant admitted that he is getting rs. 1,500/- p m. after deduction as he is a teacher in some primary school. he further contended that the wife-respondent is doing some petty business of running grossery shop. the mother of the appellant is also present in the court. probably she is dependent on the appellant. in view of this if the normal requirement of the respondent is taken to be rs. 500/- p.m. then as she is earning something by grossery shop a deduction of rs. 150/- p.m. would be proper and since the appellant has got liability of maintaining other members of his family an amount of rs. 350/- would be just and proper for the maintenance of respondent.6. accordingly it is directed that the appellant shall pay to respondent maintenance of rs. 350/- p.m. from today.7. now so far as the permission for withdrawal is concerned since the appellant himself does not want to persue the appeal and therefore it would be proper to grant permission for the same. as such the prayer is accepted. the appellant is allowed to withdraw the appeal which he withdraws with permission to-file application for divorce if so advised. appeal is dismissed in consequence thereof. parties shall bear their own costs.