Mayank vs Manju

Heard.

By this Misc. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner husband has challenged the order of trial court dated 28/6/2019 whereby petitioner's application for staying proceedings in the divorce petition till conclusion of the trial for offence under Section 498A of IPC has been rejected and petitioner's right to file written statement has also been closed.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the proceedings in divorce petition should be stayed till the proceedings in criminal case under Section 498A IPC are concluded as any disclosure of defence made by petitioner in the divorce petition will prejudicially affect his defence in the criminal case. She further submits that trial court has committed an error in closing the petitioner's right to file written statement.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record it is noticed that so far as the issue of stay of criminal proceedings are concerned, the trial court has duly considered the petitioner's prayer and has noted that petitioner could not make out a case for stay of the proceedings in the civil suit. The civil proceedings are in respect of divorce petition filed by respondent wife under Section 13A of Hindu Marriage Act, whereas the criminal proceedings are for offence under Section 498A of IPC.

The record reflects that in the criminal proceedings the charge was framed on 9/2/2015 and after that there is no substantial progress in the proceedings. The order sheets of the proceedings in the criminal case placed on record reflect that criminal case is not proceeding any further.

So far as the case for divorce is concerned, nothing has been pointed out by counsel for petitioner to show as to how the petitioner's defence in criminal case will be prejudiced if the written statement is filed in the civil suit. Mere making a bold submission without any supporting material that defence in the criminal case will be prejudiced, is not sufficient.

Supreme court also in the matter of Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vs. Ved Prakash and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 622 has held that there is no hard and fast rule that simultaneous prosecution of criminal and civil proceedings will embarrass or prejudice the accused or that invariably civil proceedings should be stayed until disposal of the criminal case. Further it has been held that mere possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to stay civil proceedings as such a possibility is envisaged by the law. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme court had set aside the judgment of High court staying civil proceedings till decision in criminal case as the same was not found to be justified.

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for staying the proceedings in civil suit.

So far as the issue of closure of petitioner's right to file written statement is concerned, having regard to the fact that petitioner was seeking stay of proceedings in the civil suit, therefore, he had not filed written statement, I am of the opinion that trial court while passing the impugned order ought not to have closed the petitioner's right to file written statement, but instead it should have granted some reasonable further opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement after the prayer for staying of the proceedings in the civil suit was rejected.

Hence that part of the order of trial court by which petitioner's right to file written statement has been closed, is set aside and petitioner is granted six week's time from today to file written statement before the trial court.

Misc. Petition is accordingly disposed off.

C.C. as per rules.