Pendyala Madhav Vs. Chandrika Tripathy - Court Judgment

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]d.n. patel, j.1. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the principal judge, family court, jamshedpur in matrimonial suit no. 188 of 2007 below an application preferred by the respondent-wife under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 and the order passed by the family court is that the petitioner has to pay the maintenance at the rate of rs. 1,000/- per month during the pendency of the matrimonial suit. against this order, the present petition has been preferred.2. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, i see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:(i) the petitioner has instituted matrimonial suit no. 188 of 2007 for the dissolution of the marriage under the hindu marriage act, 1955.(ii) looking to annexure-4, it appears that the petitioner's income from business is more than rs. 80,000/-.(iii) it is observed by the family court that the respondent is having no source of income and she is engaged in non-government organization as a part time worker. she is staying, at far away place, in the state of orissa, which is 600 kms. away form the trial court.(iv) learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is working as a project officer and she is getting a salary of rs. 30,000/- per month.(v) looking to the amount of maintenance, which is rs. 1,000/- per month, awarded by the family court, i am not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the principal judge, family court, jamshedpur. nonetheless, i hereby direct the trial court to expedite the hearing of matrimonial suit no. 188 of 2007 and the family court is directed to not grant unnecessary adjournment so as to bring to the end of the matrimonial suit no. 188 of 2007 on or before 30th december, 2010.(vi) learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assures the cooperation before the trial court so that the matrimonial suit no. 188 of 2007, filed by the petitioner, can be disposed of within aforesaid time limit.3. the petition is, hereby, disposed of as dismissed with aforesaid direction.