JUDGMENT :- The petitioner-husband has challenged the concurrent findings given by both the courts below in granting maintenance to the respondent-wife, solely on the ground that the criminal case filed against the petitioner-husband under Section 498-A has resulted into an acquittal. The acquittal order means the allegations made by the respondent-wife about harassment and ill-treatment goes. In such circumstances, there was no reason that both the courts should reopen and reconsider the same issue and grant maintenance by overlooking the fact of failure on the part of the respondent-wife to prove the allegations of harassment.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on a decision in Shankar Anant Bandal Vs. Smt. Suman Shankar Bandal and Anr. [1983(1) Bom.C.R. 601], wherein, this Court has observed that, "both the courts erred in placing reliance on the happenings said to have taken place on 10-04-1978, more particularly in view of the clean acquittal which the opponent-petitioner had secured. Since this was the basis on which the maintenance was granted, the order and proceedings needs to be quashed" and thereby allowed the said application of the husband and rejected the application filed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on para 4 of the Apex Court's decision in Masud Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1974)3 SCC 469] in reference to the principal of estoppel, which is reproduced as under :-

"4. But that apart, this matter could be decided on another point. The question of issue-estoppel has been considered by this Court in Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Manipur Administration Vs. Thokchom, Bira Singh and Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab. Issue-estoppel arises only if the earlier as well as the subsequent proceedings were criminal prosecutions. In the present case while the earlier one was a criminal prosecution the present is merely an action taken under the Foreigners (Internment) Order for the purpose of deporting the petitioner out of India. It is not a criminal prosecution. The principle of issue-estoppel is simply this; that where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res-judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by law. Pritam Singh's case (supra) was based on the decision of the Privy Council is Sambasivam Vs. Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya. In that case Lord Macdermott speaking for the Board said:

"The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication"."

It should be kept clearly in mind that the proceeding referred to herein is a criminal prosecution.· The plea of issue-estoppel is not the same as the plea of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit. In the King Wilkes Dixon, J. referring to the question of issue-estoppel said:

" ... it appears to me that there is nothing wrong in the view that there is an issue estoppel, if it appears by record of itself or as explained by proper evidence, that the same point was determined in favour of prisoner in a previous criminal trial which is brought in issue on a second criminal trial of the same prisoner ... There must be a prior proceeding determined against the Crown necessarily involving an issue which again arises in a subsequent proceeding by the Crown against the same prisoner. The allegatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document