ANANT Vs. SHEETAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 9th January, 2020 (Annexure P/1) passed in Hindu Marriage Case No.1834/2018 by 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Indore (MP) whereby the petitioner's application filed for deferring the civil suit (Hindu Marriage Case) until the criminal case between the same parties is decided, has been rejected; and he has been asked to file written statement positively by the next date of hearing (28.02.2020).

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife having their marriage solemnized on 18.02.2017. However, soon thereafter, on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, the respondent / wife (who is resident of Indore) started living separately in her parents' house; and filed an application on 05.07.2018 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, for brevity) for restitution of conjugal rights. How- ever, the petitioner (husband herein) failed to appear before the Court concerned for conciliation proceedings. Taking the same to be a rejection by the petitioner / husband of intention of the respondent / wife to reside together, the aforesaid application under Section 9 of the Act was withdrawn by the respondent on 01.11.2018. And soon thereafter, on 14.11.2018, the respondent / wife also filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) at Women Police Station, Indore District Indore (MP) registered at Crime No.211/2018. After his appearance in the Family Court in connection with case under Section 13 (1) of the Act, the petitioner on 05.09.2019 filed an application seeking time to file reply / written statement in the said case, praying therein that as both the cases, namely case under Section 13 of the Act as also under Section 498-A of IPC, have arisen out of the same set of facts, and if the petitioner is forced to file his written statement, it would amount of disclosing his evidence in the criminal Court also, where the same parties are contesting in criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC.

(3.) Mr. Anant Parey, the petitioner in person, has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts on record and is liable to be set aside, as the same runs contrary to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Shariff v. State of Madras , 1954 AIR(SC) 397 in which it has been categorically held by the Supreme Court that simul- taneous prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings regarding the same matter would only embarrass the accused. Hence, ordinarily in the absence of special circumstances, civil proceedings should be stayed pending the termination of the criminal case.