M.S.SONAK
Siddharth N. Banthia – Appellant
Versus
Smitha S. Banthia – Respondent
M.S. Sonak, J.—Heard Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner husband challenges the order dated 4th June 2016 made by the Family Court, Pune rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to stay the proceedings, i.e., Petition No. 84 of 2012, in which, the respondent - wife, has applied for declaration that her marriage with the petitioner is null and void.
3. The petitioner, applied for stay of proceedings in the civil suit on the ground that the respondent wife has initiated criminal proceedings alleging that the petitioner has committed offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 474, 376, 323, 504, 506(1) and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and such proceedings are pending in the Sessions Court, Pune.
4. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that unless the civil proceedings are stayed, the petitioner, will face sever embarrassment in the criminal proceedings before the Sessions Court. Mr. Soni submits that complicated questions of law and fact are involved in both the matters and therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of M
M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras
Arvind K. Wadodkar v. Ramdas D. Joshi
Ramanand N. Ladda v. Kacharulal A. Lodha
State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd.
Asok Kumar Pal v. Smt. Sawan Pal
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.