1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5395 OF 2007 (Yogesh Tulshiram Pimpalde .v. Ashwini Yogesh Pimpalde) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 10TH APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The respondent-wife filed proceeding for divorce being HMP No. 26/2006 and the same is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Achalpur. The petitioner-husband also filed proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent being HMP No. 27/2006. In addition to above, the respondent-wife also filed criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed an application at Exh.36 in HMP No.26/2006 filed by the respondent-wife for divorce, with a prayer to stay HMP No.26/2006 until disposal of criminal case against him under Section 498A. The learned trial Judge dismissed the 2 petitioner's application on the ground that the proceeding for divorce and proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights can be tried jointly. It is true that the learned trial Court has not applied its mind to the petitioner's application at Exh.36 and rejected the same on irrelevant ground. However, in my opinion, though the reasons given by the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner are not correct, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is correct. This is specially in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan .v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited and others (reported in 1996 (3) SCC 87), under which the pendency of the criminal proceedings relating to the same matter is no bar to civil suit. The Apex Court in this decision also observed that the criminal matters are rarely stayed and that too only under compelling circumstances. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in above judgment, I am not inclined to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.