JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J. 1. Shri C.R. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned counsel for the non-applicant. A show cause notice was issued in this case, in response to which Shri B.L. Pavecha has appeared for the non-applicant. With the consent of parties, the case was heard finally. 2. Shri C.R. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, against the applicant. The case was initiated on a complaint made to the police by the non-applicant. The non-applicant simultaneously filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of her marriage with the applicant in the Court of District Judge, Mandsaur. A prayer for stay of the divorce proceedings was made on behalf of the applicant before the learned District Judge, Mandsaur on the ground that if the applicant is made to disclose his defence in the Civil Court, he will be seriously prejudiced in his defence of the criminal case. This prayer has been rejected by the District Court. Against this, the present revision has been filed. 3. Shri Joshi submits that the allegations in both the cases are identical and it would not be just and proper to allow the divorce proceedings to go on while the criminal case is pending. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras ( AIR 1954 SC 397 ), the learned counsel submitted that whenever criminal proceedings and civil proceedings on the same facts and circumstances are commenced simultaneously, civil proceedings have to be stayed. Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned counsel for the non-applicant on the other hand submitted that there is no question of prejudice involved in the case because the applicants have already submitted their written statement in the divorce proceedings. He further submitted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, petitions under Section 13 thereof have to be expeditiously disposed of by conducting them day-to-day and delivering judgment within six months. According to Shri Pavecha the intention of the legislature in enacting such a provision would be defeated if on the basis of the criminal case, the proceedings before the divorce Court are stayed. 4. According to Shri Pavecha the intention of the legislature in enacting such a provision would be defeated if on the basis of the criminal case, the proceedings before the divorce Court are stayed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, I have come to the conclusion that this application has no force and deserves to be dismissed. The learned District Judge has not exceeded his jurisdiction nor failed to exercise jurisdiction not vested in it nor has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise, of his jurisdiction. He has exercised his jurisdiction giving cogent reasons. As the written statement has already been filed by the applicant in the District Court, the defence is already disclosed. Thus, if the order is allowed to stand, it would not cause a failure of justice or cause irrepairable injury to the applicant. The judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the applicant does not lay down that in all cases where a criminal case is filed on the same facts and circumstances, the civil proceedings have to be stayed. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.