Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - Both the civil revisions are connected. Civil Revision No.1282 of 2012 is by the husband for matrimonial proceedings challenging the order passed staying matrimonial proceedings till the final conclusion of a criminal case. Civil Revision No.1249 of 2010 is by the wife against the dismissal of her claim for interim maintenance.

2. The order granting stay was passed at a time when the husband’s evidence was concluded and it was posted for the respondent-wife’s evidence. The petition for divorce had been sought on the ground of cruelty which sets out several instances, among which a ground urged was that his wife was herself responsible for the death of his mother. It appears a charge under Section 306 IPC has been laid against the wife for abetment to suicide and the wife therefore moved an application contending that her defence, which is yet to come in the criminal case, cannot be forced to be disclosed in the civil case. Both the counsel relied on substantially a large volume of case law, but it all boils down to a formula that there cannot be a hard and fast rule of whether the pendency of a criminal case will dictate the progress of a civil case or not. The issue is not one of admissibility of judgment of civil court judgment in another criminal court case or vice versa. Since the petition has been filed for stay of trial of criminal proceeding, the issue is whether an earlier conduct of matrimonial proceeding will cause embarrassment at the trial or would force selfincriminating statements on the accused in the criminal case. There shall be no reason for the wife to suspect that the pendency of the criminal case is likely to put her to any difficulty. In the first place, the petition for divorce is founded on ground of cruelty and there are definite instances of cruelty set out in the petition which have no bearing to the criminal case. To illustrate, the following are some of the episodes narrated in the petition:-

“a) The house was owned by the mother of the respondent. Soon after the marriage, Aloka started misbehaving and insisted on having a separate residence. Aloka and her father B.R. Syal used to harass and threaten the respondent and his mother that they will have to face dire consequences if they did not accede to the demand of Aloka.

b) Within 4½ months of marriage, mental harassment inflicted by rude and humiliating conduct of Aloka and her father B.R. Syal became unbearable and the respondent was forced to lodge two separate complaints at DLF Police Station on 24.6.04 and 1.8.04. Subsequently Aloka went to her parental house and stayed there for 7 ¼ months and returned to the house of respondent on 7.2.2005.

c) When Aloka returned, a memo of understanding dated 7.2.2005 was signed between the family of petitioner and respondent wherein Aloka apologized for the misdemeanors and threats extended by her and her father. Even after return, Aloka continued to misbehave and harass the respondent and his mother.

d) It was further submitted that the petitioner made a false complaint to National Commission for Women around 26.10.05 alleging that she was being harassed by the respondent and his family members for dowry and that it was the respondent and his brother, who had murdered Manmohan Kaur. Upon getting the notice of National Commission for Women, Gurgaon Police filed a reply that the complaint filed by Aloka was false. Subsequently, the complaint of accused Aloka before National Commission for Women was rejected.”

3. Further a right against self-incrimination is a constitutional guarantee and the wife shall be at perfect liberty to choose not to answer any question which is in any way connected to the incident of death of the husband’s mother. There are statutory protections to even maintaining silence, without being visited with consequence of adverse inference. It will be wrong to assume that the fundamental right against self-incrimination extends immunity against being ex