ES एम० पी० श्रीवास्तव बनाम श्रीमति बीना AIR 1967 SC 1193 के तथ्य, निर्णय और प्रतिपादित विधि के सिद्धान्तों का वर्णन कीजिए।

 

Case: M. P. Shrivastav vs. Smt. Veena (AIR 1967 SC 1193)

This case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, primarily dealing with issues related to the interpretation of procedural laws, matrimonial disputes, and the principles governing judicial discretion. Below is a detailed explanation of the case, including the facts, legal principles, and judgment.

---

Facts of the Case:

1. The appellant, M. P. Shrivastav, and the respondent, Smt. Veena, were married.
2. The dispute between the parties led to legal proceedings related to the dissolution of marriage and ancillary reliefs.
3. The case reached the Supreme Court on issues involving procedural irregularities and legal principles regarding matrimonial reliefs.

---

Legal Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Procedural Law in Matrimonial Cases – The case dealt with how procedural technicalities should be applied in matrimonial disputes.
2. Judicial Discretion and Fairness – It examined whether the courts exercised discretion appropriately while dealing with reliefs in matrimonial matters.
3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – The case involved the interpretation of statutes related to marriage and family law.

---

Judgment of the Supreme Court:

• The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and procedural aspects of the case in light of the existing legal framework.
• It emphasized that procedural laws should be applied in a manner that serves the ends of justice rather than defeating substantive rights.
• The court laid down principles for the fair exercise of judicial discretion in matrimonial cases.
• The decision provided clarity on the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and their application in family law disputes.

---

Principles of Law Laid Down:

1. Substance Over Procedure: Courts should prioritize the substantive rights of the parties over procedural technicalities, especially in matrimonial matters.
2. Equitable Relief in Matrimonial Disputes: The judiciary must ensure fairness and justice while deciding issues affecting personal relationships.
3. Discretion in Procedural Matters: Judges have the authority to exercise discretion in procedural aspects but must do so judiciously to prevent injustice.

---

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in M. P. Shrivastav vs. Smt. Veena reinforced the idea that procedural laws should be interpreted and applied in a manner that upholds substantive justice. This case remains an important precedent in family law and procedural jurisprudence.