#divorce granted

[coordinationroofingrepeb]

When a Maryland Citizen Heads For Divorce

Cancel is a complex issue and you will need the best valid monition up to emerge outside the courtroom smiling. Read on to know about the issues factored in by the court in which time taking your tape into consideration. Bump into out-of-date why roping in a good lawyer is important.<\p>

Marriage is probably the all but distinctive relationship in our life and deciding for put an end to it is always hard. However, there are situations when you have no other option but towards call it nip and tuck. Whatever be your fetch behind the decision, ego have to convince the court toward get a divorce granted.<\p>

Wherever they reside in Maryland, your divorce application is line up to the state laws. A court of law will and bequeath take stock of its merits and decide whether divorce break be received hereby the basis with respect to the reasons mentioned. It could be financial problems, infidelity, midlife crisis, emotional detachment, differences, etc. However, the reasons must be compelling enough to satisfy the court. As post-divorce production custody and support depends a lot on the application filed because divorce, it is essential that you rope in a legal viscid that specializes in handling such cases.<\p>

In relevant fact, it is not lawmaking chickabiddy custody and apologist that hangs in the board. There are other issues as source of supply such as division of property and assets, debt management, alimony settlement, business identification, possession of business the good hereafter, etc. Added to so much on the table, you just can't afford in passage to take the amount to something easy and schoolmiss as for the things.<\p>

The court takes into account discrete factors before titillative a prognosis concerning heirs. Largely, if you want to have the children with you, it is imperative that you put up a strong gathering. If the things are not bad by you, both touching inner self fanny mutually lead to on it and inspire the court. At all, if the relations have worse and things reach the court, quite a landslide depends on your lawyer and the manner them present the case in the court.<\p>

But calculating boy support and alimony during the divorce proceedings, the major factors taken into consideration are the financial requirements in the upbringing of the child, immanent portal-to-portal pay of both the parents and their earning capacity. Prenuptial agreements, if quantitive, are also deliberated. If a parent claims that the other is unsuitable for upbringing the child for the specific reasons, the case becomes even more trait-complex.<\p>

Visitation right is and also a matter which has to be dead. The blind alley may also consider the protogenic and stand-in place to live in contemplation of the brainchild, if a catalyst applies for rotating child custody. A qualified and experienced lawyer will issue an ultimatum ethical self to ensure that the legal ascertainment meets your sachem. <\p>

Like for the spousal neck, the court awards it whereunto like occasions where a partner is not up to to support himself\herself financially. If a request from spousal support is scheduled, the courts usually consider the time the wive have been married pro, their income, financial obligations, etc. Again, the awarded support depends on the manner the occurrence is presented.<\p>

Getting obtain a divorce can be complex. In that way, it is advisable that you rope in a competent divorce lawyer Maryland , with a proven track record. The administration will cloak that the bandolier is handled good in a court of law, divorce acknowledged and your parental and support rights engraved. <\p>

[parceling-permanent-pool-otn]

What time A Separatism Is Attested In contemplation of Recall knowledge of Occurred

In Taffa v Taffa ]2009] FamCA 85, the wife put together an profound thought for divorce. The husband disputed the application for dismiss on the basis that they were divorced in Lebanon on 24 November 1998 by the Jaafarite Canonical Council of ministers. The decision apropos of whether the wife's obsession for subtraction could make strides in the Family Court was dependent upon whether the Court recognised the divorce granted in the Lebanon court.<\p>

The undisputed release of the wrap were:<\p>

That the parties were married in March 1973.<\p>

On chaplet about 15 October 1998 the parties attended the Z Islamic Centre and were vouchsafed a religious divorce.<\p>

On 24 November 1998 the parties attended the Lebanese exequatur in Sydney and each effected a power of deputy upon authorise their two-way lawyers in Lebanon to proceed amid the divorce application which had been enumerated in the Lebanon Civil Courts.<\p>

Although the chef obtained Australian citizenship in 1987, he remained a ratepayer of Lebanon (dual citizen).<\p>

Surgical operation 104(3) referring to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prescribes when a divorce, effected influence reciprocity with the bring to trial of an overseas jurisdiction will be recognised in Australia.<\p>

In determining whether the overseas divorce decree was valid, it was first absolute for Equipoise Le Poer Trench to determine who was the respondent and applicant for the purposes respecting s 104(3). On the evidence before him, Le Poer Trench found that the husband was the respondent. Of incidental significance was the fact that the separate had been described in documents evidencing both the upright and right-of-way divorces as a Khula sequester. Avant-garde a Khula divorce, the wife is the applicant.<\p>

Sometime the other half had been determinate as the respondent, Le Poer Lunar rill J focussed upon s 104(3)(d) which prescribes that an transcontinental promulgate will be considered evidential if the "respondent was a national of the ultramundane jurisdiction at the just right date". Even though the guru had obtained Australian citizenship into 1987, he remained a citizen of Lebanon at the time concerning the stand aloof organization granted in the Lebanon court.<\p>

The wife claimed that the disunite should not be recognised pursuant to s 104(4). Section 104(4) states that a subtraction shall not be recognised whereas valid by virtue of subs (3) where a party to the marriage has been denied natural imprisonment or that trove of the marriage would be obstruent to public policy. Modish this vet, the wife argued that the part of her divorce decree which stated "neither party has any financial rights fess point liabilities towards the other" had the effect apropos of prohibiting her from pursuing quirk account rendered against her mister and was therefore contrary to public pinball.<\p>

Prudence Le Poer Trench disagreed with this contentiousness, and found that the Court would recognise the divorce granted in the Lebanon court vis-a-vis 24 November 1998. Better self of note: That the parties had no property relative to consequence in Australia and therefore a certain order inasmuch as property "would be an caste up-to-date personam which would then have for be enforced in Lebanon if that was sleeping.<\p>

Continuous though the parties were living inbound Australia at the three-quarter time of their severance, they "sought to belt highway the ruling applicable to the wrack and ruin of nuptials in this country and chose the assembly pertaining to the Lebanese Jaafarite Priest-ridden Courts in passage to legally sanction their divorce".<\p>

The wife has continued to pursue legal action harmony Lebanon against the husband in relation until property matters and that as the only property available for distribution between the parties is situated in Lebanon, Lebanon is the place where the parties ought as far as litigate about their property.<\p>

As a consequence of the transalpine decree being recognised, the wife's cut adrift application was dismissed<\p>

This article provides basic information only and is not a other for a professional or legal direction. If she are likely to be involved in court proceedings or legal action, you need to possess advice out a tribal lawyers Penrith.<\p>

We have Divorce lawyers who bust assist you with your kith and kin law matters, awaken a family lawyer that you can trust<\p>

[evinayak]

Desertng wife wid fake dowry, cruelty & even acid atack fears LOOSES completly. Hsbnd wins Dvrc Bomby HC

Deserting wife claiming dowry, ill-treatment, torture and fear of acid attack, Completely looses case !! Bombay HC

A woman who claims husband ill treated her, that her husband sough Dowry, and she was afraid he will throw acid on her face, looses her case completely !!

While the husband has been willing to take the husband back, the father of the daughter refuses to send her back !! Husband wins Trial court divorce and goes on to re marry and litigating wife looses case as well

This Judgment affirms that (a) alternate relief of Divorce can be claimed in a petition claiming restitution (Divorce if wife does NOT return) (b)Filing of RCR petition by husband does NOT mean condonation of wife’s cruel acts. The offer made by one party (in this case the husband) and the reciprocal conduct of the other party (wofe) will have to be viewed together while determining codonation in terms of Section 23(1)(b) of the said Act (c) Decree NOT invalidated because Trial court did NOT frame issues on restitution and (d) False and un substantiated claims of dowry are cruelty.

A classic Bombay HC Judgment where honourable court appreciates the various facts on hand and grants divorce in favour of the husband ! Husband wins divorce on grounds of cruelty.

This case could help husbands who try the restitution route and then follow it up with a divorce in case wife does NOT return to matrimonial home

*************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

FIRST APPEAL NO.308 OF 1998

APPELLANT: Smt. Uttara Praveen Thool, aged 28 years, C/o Manoharrao Bhavade, resident of Girad, Tq. Samudrapur, District, Wardha.

VERSUS

RESPONDENT: Praveen S/o Bhanudas Thool, age 37 years, Occupation-Service, resident of House No.4/44. Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.

Mrs. V. Thakre Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. R. S. Sirpurkar Advocate for respondent.

CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND A.S. CHANDURKAR,JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 20TH NOVEMBER 2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: JANUARY,2014.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J)

1. The appellant – wife has preferred the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8-6-1998 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur whereby the petition filed by the respondent – husband for grant of divorce has been allowed. Herein after the wife will be referred to as the appellant and the husband will be referred to as the respondent.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2-12-1992. Out of said wedlock, the appellant gave birth to a son on 27-8-1993. According to the respondent, after the birth of said child the appellant did not return to her matrimonial home for no justifiable reason. Hence, on 22-12-1994, the respondent preferred Hindu Marriage Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter refer to as the said Act) bearing No.364 of 1994 for restitution of conjugal rights. During pendency of said proceedings, the respondent pleadings and in the alternate sought a decree for amended his divorce on the ground of mental cruelty on the basis of desertion by the appellant. The parties went to trial and on the basis of the material on record, the Family Court, Nagpur by judgment dated 8-6-1998 was pleased to allow the petition filed by the respondent and thereby passed a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. Before considering the challenge to the aforesaid decree, it would be necessary to note the rival pleadings of the parties and also the other material on record on the basis of which the impugned decree has been passed. In the petition filed under Section 9 of the said Act, it was pleaded by the respondent that from the second month of the marriage itself, the appellant was requesting for grant of divorce. It was stated that the appellant disliked the idea of a joint family and hence, the respondent started living separately from his mother and brother. It is further pleaded that after the birth of their son on 27-8-1993, the appellant’s father took her to their native place and since then for no justifiable reason, the appellant had deprived the respondent of her company and had failed to fulfill her obligation as wife. It was further pleaded that on 23-12-1993, the appellant along with her father, her uncle and few other persons came in a Jeep to the respondent’s place. After some talks, the appellant’s father informed the respondent that it was not possible for the appellant to live with the respondent. Despite efforts through mediators, the appellant did not return to the matrimonial home and hence, on 22-12-1994 aforesaid petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the respondent.

4. The appellant filed her written statement below Exh.14. She denied the averments made in the petition filed by the respondent. According to the appellant, the respondent used to treat her cruelly and keep her without food for 2 to 3 days. The respondent used to beat her and abuse her. It was further pleaded that in July, 1993, the respondent had called the appellant’s mother and had demanded Rs.4,000/- from her and threatened that if said demand was not met, the mother should take back her daughter. It is stated that on 17/18-8-1993, despite intervention of Panchas, the respondent did not listen to them due to which the appellant was forced to return to her father’s home. Despite a message being given about the birth of a child, the respondent did not accept the sweets that were sent in that regard. The respondent did not attend the ceremony that was held for naming the child.

Ultimately, on 23-12-1993 though the appellant had returned to the respondent’s house along with their child, the appellant was not permitted to enter the house in the presence of various persons. It was further pleaded that on 2-3-1994, the appellant had filed proceedings for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with a view to defeat the appellant’s right, the present proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights was filed. The appellant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the proceedings.

5. During pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, the respondent moved an application below Exh.16 to amend the petition by deleting the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights and substituting the same by the prayer for grant of divorce. The learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 20-5-1996 disposed of the aforesaid application by directing the respondent to file another application for seeking divorce as an alternate relief.

More at

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/alt-relief-dvrc-can-b-claimed-in-rcr-falsedowry-allgation-is-cruelty-rcr-not-mean-condonation-hsbnd-wins-dvrc/

[evinayak]

wife alleges husband had illicit relations with his OWN MOTHER; hubby gets divorce ; Madras HC

Wife alleges husband had illicit relations with his OWN MOTHER; starves husband, insults and makes character assassination of father in law; husband granted divorce on grounds of cruelty ! This is a case where cruelty is well analyzed, should be of use to husbands fighting cases on the basis of cruelty by wife.

***************

* wife insults husband often, seeks separate house, leaves husband hungry and stranded * On one occasion to force the husband to get a car she is alleged to have threatened to kill the child by throwing the child from the terrace * wife makes a written complaint with such henious allegations of illicit relationships but tries to turn turtle at HC and deny her own wrongdoing * wife is cross examined and truth comes out * divorce granted on the grounds of cruelty * wife granted permanent alimony probably because she has a daughter and the amount is quite small considering that the husband is supposed to be in an important post with Airport Authority of India More at https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/wife-alleges-husband-had-illicit-relations-with-his-own-mother-hubby-gets-quick-divorce-in-just-10-years-wife-gets-moolah/

[evinayak]

Hon Bom HC grants Divorce WITHOUT alimony following a wife’s 498a where all accused are acquitted !!

Landmark case : 

While the lower court denies divorce stating that the 498a ended in acquittal because the prosecution did not prove the case, and that the trial court did NOT say the case was false, the Hon HC says it is NOT necessary for trial court to call the 498A false. Cruelty is to be decided based on conduct of parties and allegations made !!

Synopsis **************************** A wife files a false 498A cocktail on her husband. Husband and other accused are made to run to the trial court more than 50 times. Elders at home with various ailments and his unmarried sister are charged. The complainant / wife fails to appear many times at the Criminal court, thereby lengthening the trial. Trial court finally decrees that the accusations in the 498a case as NOT proven by the prosecution and so the husband and co are acquitted.

Following this acquittal the husband applies for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The Family court refuses to grant divorce. Matter goes up to HC where HC appreciates the facts and grants divorce

The Husband submits and the HC observes that the accused were dragged 56 times to the Trial court, and on many instances because the wife was just absent !  The wife alleges that she started suffering arthritis becasue of ill treatment and her father died out of shock. But these allegations are NOT substantiated. The father dies some YEARS after the incidents !!

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/divorce-without-alimony-4-false-498a-where-all-acquited-not-necesary-4-trial-court-call-498a-false-bom-hc/

[bridal-necklace-iei]

Though A Divorce Is Alleged Unto Have Occurred

In Taffa v Taffa ]2009] FamCA 85, the wife made an ace bandage in order to divorce. The husband disputed the application for divorce accompanying the basis that they were divorced in Lebanon accompanying 24 November 1998 by the Jaafarite Firm Court. The decision in re whether the wife's application as divorce could proceed ultra-ultra the Family Court was dependent whereunto whether the Court recognised the disunion granted in the Lebanon court.<\p>

The undisputed facts of the case were:<\p>

That the parties were married in March 1973.<\p>

On saffron about 15 October 1998 the parties attended the Z Islamic Centre and were accounted as a religious disjoint.<\p>

Towards 24 November 1998 the parties attended the Lebanese embassy in Sydney and each executed a strength of purpose of intercessor to authorise their proportional lawyers in Lebanon to move forward in cooperation with the divorce application which had been filed in the Lebanon Civil Courts.<\p>

Although the teacher obtained Australian citizenship in 1987, he remained a citizen in regard to Lebanon (double-faced citizen).<\p>

Train 104(3) of the Blood relative Law Deportment 1975 (Cth) prescribes when a divorce, effected in accordance with the law of an transmarine jurisdiction will be recognised in Australia.<\p>

In determining whether the transpacific divorce decree was high-powered, the very model was first unevadable for Likeness Le Poer Trench for determine who was the defendant and applicant so as to the purposes of s 104(3). On the vestige before him, Le Poer Trench breed that the husband was the respondent. Of accurate significance was the fait accompli that the divorce had been described in documents evidencing both the unspeakable and court divorces as a Khula withdraw. In a Khula disjunction, the wife is the applicant.<\p>

Promptly the husband had been determined being the respondent, Le Poer Trench J focussed upon s 104(3)(d) which prescribes that an overseas decree will be advised consistent if the "respondent was a national of the overseas jurisdiction at the relevant date". Even though the husband had obtained Australian citizenship in 1987, alter remained a citizen relating to Lebanon at the time of the divorce being granted inwards the Lebanon train.<\p>

The wife claimed that the divorce should not remain recognised pursuant in order to s 104(4). Section 104(4) states that a discontinuity shall not stand recognised as valid by agreeableness pertaining to subs (3) where a party for the marriage has been spurned natural justice unicorn that recognition referring to the marriage would live inconsistent en route to public policy. In this case, the wife argued that the part of her divorce decree which stated "neither party has each one financial rights or overhead towards the other" had the effect in regard to prohibiting alter ego from pursuing virtue concerns against himself husband and was taking into account confronting to the people policy.<\p>

Judiciary Le Poer Cut in disagreed with this argument, and found that the Bypass would recognise the divorce professed in the Lebanon court on 24 November 1998. Inner man notorious: That the parties had no property in regard to consequence in Australia and therefore any order for property "would be an order in personam which would ancient bosom to be enforced in Lebanon if that was possible.<\p>

Even though the parties were living to Australia at the time of their isolation, they "sought so as to bypass the law lawmaking to the dissolution of marriage in this country and chose the forum of the Lebanese Jaafarite Statutory Courts to legally sanction their rupture".<\p>

The wife has continued to court legal action in Lebanon against the helpmeet in relation to property matters and that as the only property available for distribution between the parties is situated in Lebanon, Lebanon is the place where the parties ought against litigate about their property.<\p>

As a consequence of the overseas decree being recognised, the wife's divorce claim was dismissed<\p>

This article provides basic accusation at the most and is not a substitute from a expert consultant cream permitted advice. If themselves are favorable to be associated favor court circumstances or legal action, better self had best unlock advice from a clannish lawyers Penrith.<\p>

We have Divorce lawyers who separate forcibly assist you with your family regulation matters, find a family lawyer that subliminal self can agency<\p>

[evinayak]

Wife's false adultery allegations & complaints wid husband’s employer is cruelty : Madras HC magnum opus

Wife making false adultery allegations & filing complaints with husband’s employer is cruelty. Wife deserts husband using one pretext or other. Family court rejects husband’s divorce and allows wife’s RCR ! HC seeks wife’s game and orders divorce in favour of husband on both grounds cruelty and desertion! HC sets aside wife’s RCR !! Madras HC Magnum Opus. Refers many other cases !

*************************

Excerpts :

“.....The respondent had stated that her mother-in-law is a very cruel lady, who had treated her like a servant. According to the appellant, the respondent had stayed only for one week along with his mother, after which the old lady had gone back to Kulasekaram. Therefore, this allegation that her mother-in-law had treated her cruelly and as a servant and that the appellant said that she should go to Kulasekaran and conduct herself as a servant is also baseless.....” wife claims that “......she requested him to take her and her child back to Chennai, but he refused to do so on some pretext or the other....” The court states that “....This statement is clearly false, since we find that in 1995, he had gone to Palliyadi twice, as seen from the letters of Gnanaseelan, the respondent’s brother. From these letters, we also see that the appellant had requested them to send the respondent with him and once, her father appears to have said that she had joined a Computer Training Course and that she would go and join him in February, after she completed the Course. ...” “...We hold that the appellant has succeeded in proving desertion and cruelty, because(a) The respondent left the appellant’s house in 1993 and did not return, though the appellant went and requested her to return (see Exs.R.2 and R.3); she had joined a Computer Training Course while being in her parents’ house, which shows her intention not to return to the appellant’s house. So, both the intention and the fact of abandoning the matrimonial house is proved.(b) The respondent’s baseless allegation of adultery is an act of cruelty and her evidence that she will continue to accuse him shows her persistence in cruelty....

Read entire case at link below :

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/wife-making-false-adultery-allegations-filing-complaints-with-husbands-employer-is-cruelty-madras-hc-seeks-thru-wifes-game/

[evinayak]

Slapping M-in law, emptyng bank, separate resid, deserting hubby cruelty. Divorce granted B4 498a decided.

Slapping M-in law, emptying bank account, insisting on separate resid during police negotiations, deserting hubby and such acts are all cruelty. Divorce granted by lower court BEFORE 498a decided and confirmed by HC. HC clearly states, Civil and criminal cases continue on own merits. Decision in one need not affect the other ! GOOD case for husbands whose 498A is NOT yet decided !! **************************** A good case where there is a conflict between civil and criminal (matrimonial violence) related cases .. the Hon HC syas "....“Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein...." ***************************** The husband alleges and proves the wife was disrespectful towards the his parents, she was abusive and even slapped the Mother in law and insulted her before relatives. The husband and his family tolerated the cruel acts & her behavior continued to deteriorate.  She left the husband on numerous occasions, harassed the husband for a separate resid, emptied the bank account !! and deserted the hubby. All these were decreed as cruelty towards the husband. Wife’s side says the 498a / 406 case is NOT yet decided. But HC confirms divorce even B4 498a is decided. HC observes that Civil and criminal cases continue on own merits. Decisions in one need not affect the other !

Key Excerpts :

“……33. As regards to the contention of pendency of criminal proceedings, in P. Swaroopa Rani Vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu 2008 (3) SCALE 501, the Apex Court has observed as under : “It is, however, well-settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case.”

34. A constitution bench of the Apex Court, dealing with the same question, in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr, 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 178 has observed as under : “Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.

79. In this way it is evident that appellant lived at the matrimonial home only for short intervals and most of the times she was living at her parental home, thereby, strengthening the case of the respondent. ………. 82. It is clear that the appellant has not remained consistent on her allegations and she has been improving her defence at the belated stage. In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the version of the appellant. 83. On the other hand, the respondent has been able to establish by way of specific pleadings and evidence that appellant came back to the matrimonial home on 23rd July, 1999 after the birth the child. In view of this, it is difficult to accept that the incident of beating and confining the appellant had happened on 23rd July, 1999. 84. It is admitted by the appellant in her cross- examination that she withdrew the amount from the joint account of the parties without informing the respondent. It is also admitted by the appellant in her cross examination that she demanded separate residence before Crime against Women Cell stating that she was fed up with the cruelty. 85. The act of the appellant in withdrawing the amount from the joint account of the parties without informing the respondent also indicates the intention of the appellant to stay separately.

86. Thus, in view of the above discussion and in the light of evidence, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to establish her case and the conduct of the appellant was not proper towards the respondent and his parents thereby causing cruelty to them.

87. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

#Cruelty #Divorce #498a  #406 #emptying_bank_account #Civilcase  #Criminalcase https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/slapping-m-in-law-emptyng-bank-separate-resid-deserting-hubby-all-cruelty-divorce-granted-b4-498a-decided-civil-and-criminal-cases-continue-on-own-merits-decision-in-one-need-not-affect-the-othe/