Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Chouhan vs Smr Sangeeta Chouhan on 16 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
1 CRR-5531-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5531 of 2024
JITENDRA CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
SMR SANGEETA CHOUHAN
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Chaturvedi - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Nitin Jain - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment dated
03.10.2024 passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal
Appeal No.36/2024 arising out of judgment dated 14.12.2023 passed by 20th
Civil Judge Senior Division, District- Bhopal in MJCR No.6802027/2016.
2. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the application
filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the respondent was dismissed by
the Family Court as well as this Court concluding that the respondent was
not the legally married wife of the applicant. Application under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal without discussing the
evidence and the facts of the case, has allowed the application of the
respondent/wife and the Appellate Court has affirmed the same without
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
2 CRR-5531-2024
proving that the domestic violence took place with the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for applicants has further stated that the respondent
is the second wife of the applicant. Applicant has two issues from his first
wife and the respondent was also married to one Bhuvanesh Chouhan and
only resided six months along with Bhuvanesh Chouhan and after taking
huge amount as alimony, left the first husband and without disclosing this
fact, married to the present applicant in Arya Samaj.
4. In Ex.D-1, application to administrator Arya Samaj, Nehru Nagar,
Bhopal, she did not disclose that she was already married whereas in Ex.D-2,
in the affidavit of marriage, she has admitted that she was already married to
one Bhuvanesh Chouhan and the marriage was dissolved on 10.03.2014 but
no decree of divorce with Bhuvanesh Kumar has been produced, thus, her
marriage from the previous husband was not legally dissolved.
5. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that respondent
resided along with him first time after marriage seven days, second time she
came for two days and third time she resided only for two days and after that
she was making the pressure to transfer two acres of agricultural land and the
residential house of Indore on her name, otherwise, she will implicate the
applicant in the false case of demand of dowry and on that the
applicant/husband had lodged an FIR to the Police Station Hiranagar, Indore
and Police has submitted a charge sheet against the respondent and her
family members mother Jamunabai, father Kashiram and maternal uncle
Hoshiyar Singh.
6. The respondent has also lodged an FIR at Police Station – Bhopal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
3 CRR-5531-2024
which after inquiry, was found false and closed and after that she has filed a
complaint against the applicant/husband.
7. The applicant/husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent and her
family members are in habit of making the marriages with a person and start
extorting the money and ornaments from them. Respondent/wife from her
previous husband Bhuvanesh Chouhan has extorted 100 gram (10 tola) of
gold and a huge amount of cash and after that left him but the trial Court and
Appellate Court have not considered these aspects and dismissed the
application.
8. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the
applicant/husband and his family members started harassing the respondent
from very beginning. The applicant was knowing that the respondent/wife
was married to one Bhuvanesh Chouhan and as per the custom prevailing in
her society, the respondent has dissolved her marriage with her first husband
Bhuvanesh. Applicant/husband was also previously married and has two
children from his first wife, the first wife has also left the applicant/husband
due to ill treatment. After solemnizing the marriage from the respondent, the
applicant/husband started harassing the respondent also and was not taking
care of her and due to that she was residing separate in her parental house.
9. Same factors are not applicable in the cases of Section, 125 of the
Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
and relying on the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.527/2022 by
Singh Bench of this Court at Indore dated 02.11.2023 has submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
4 CRR-5531-2024
though the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed but the
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act is maintainable as held in para Nos.16-17 of the judgment
which is held as under :
“16. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed his reliance
upon the case of Mahesh Kumar and Others Vs. Smt. Pramila, 2017 (III)
MPWN 28. The relevant paragraphs Nos. 6, 7, 8 are here as under :-
6. The nature of proceeding under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is different
from the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
7. According to Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, an aggrieved person as the
respondent, she is entitled to file a petition seeking one or more
reliefs provided under the Act. Section 18 provides for protection
order, Section 19 for residential order and Section 20 for monetary
reliefs.
8. An aggrieved person is defined under clause (a) of
Section 2 as any woman who is or has been in domestic
relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been
subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.
Domestic relationship is defined under Clause (f) of Section 2 as
relationship between two persons, who live or have, at any point of
time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related
by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature
of marriage.”
17. In this regard, the following excerpt laid down in landmark
judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha &
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
5 CRR-5531-2024
Another, 2021 (2) SCC 324, is consigned to quote here :-
“55. The issue of overlapping jurisdictions under the HMA
and D.V. Act or Cr.P.C. came up for consideration before a
division bench of the Delhi High Court in RD v BD wherein the
Court held that maintenance granted to an aggrieved person under
the D.V. Act, would be in addition to an order of maintenance u/S.
125 Cr.P.C., or under the HMA. The legislative mandate envisages
grant of maintenance to the wife under various statutes. It was not
the intention of the legislature that once an order is passed in
either of the maintenance proceedings, the order would debar re-
adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other proceeding.
In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment, it was observed that :
“16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Sections 20, 26
and 36 of DV Act would clearly establish that the provisions of
DV Act dealing with maintenance are supplementary to the
provisions of other laws and therefore maintenance can be granted
to the aggrieved person (s) under the DV Act which would also be
in addition to any order of maintenance arising out of Section 125
of Cr.P.C.”
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent has submitted
that no case for interference is made out.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The facts relevant to this case are that the applicant/husband and
respondent/wife were already married. The name of applicant’s first wife was
Archana Chouhan and the marriage was dissolved on 07.08.2015 and the
name of respondent’s first husband was Bhuvanesh Chouhan and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
6 CRR-5531-2024
marriage was dissolved on 10.03.2014. The applicant/husband was having
two children from his first wife. Daughter Jiya aged about 5 years and son
Vansh aged about two years. As per Ex.D-1, the application was filed by the
parties on 20.10.2015 before the Administrator, Arya Samaj, Nehru Nagar,
Bhopal for performing their marriage and marriage was solemnized and as
per that an agreement was executed on 14.12.2015 and as per Ex.2 C,
marriage certificate was issued by Arya Samaj, Neharu Nagar, Bhopal that
the marriage has been solemnized as per the custom of Arya Samaj.
12. The respondent Sangeeta (AW-1) in her examination-in-chief has
supported the above facts but stated that when she went to her matrimonial
house, she came to know the fact that the applicant has left her first wife as
she had not brought sufficient dowry. Applicant also demanded dowry from
her in cash two lakh rupees and a car. Firstly, he abused her and after 8 to 10
days residing, she returned to her parental house and narrated her situation to
her family members. His father had given Rs.50,000/- as dowry to her in-
laws and when again she went to her matrimonial house, her husband and in-
laws started demanding rest of the 1.5 lakh as dowry and started harassing
and stated that untill she bring the rest of the dowry amount, she will not be
able to live there. Her husband assaulted her and her father-in-law was stating
that do not give her food, on that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law locked
her in a room whole day. She was hungry as no food was provided to her,
her husband when he returned, stated that she could not live there without
fulfilling their demands and made quarrel and left her to parental house.
13. When this witness was cross examined, this witness has admitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
7 CRR-5531-2024
in para-7 of the her cross examination that as per Ex.D-1, B to B part it has
been clearly mentioned that both of them are marrying inter caste marriage
without any dowry, as per the custom of Arya Samaj. The application was
filed on 20.10.2015 and marriage was solemnized on 14.12.2015. She and
her husband have jointly given an affidavit Ex.D-2 and in that it has been
clearly mentioned that no demand of dowry or money, has been made and
she has not brought any gold or silver ornaments from her parental house.
She has also admitted that, no decree was received for dissolution of
marriage from Bhuvanesh Chouhan and the marriage was dissolved from
Bhuvanesh Chouhan as per the Social Custom. She has also admitted in her
cross examination that she had filed the maintenance application under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bhopal and that was
dismissed and the interim maintenance application was also dismissed by the
Family Court as well as by this Court. She has also admitted that on
20.04.2019 in Police Station – Hiranagar, Indore, the applicant has lodged an
FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 417, 469 and 120B of the
IPC and the case was registered as Ex. D-3.
14. When the suggestion was given that she has filed the registration
of FIR in the Indore Bench of this Court, she has stated that after prosecuting
sometimes, the application was withdrawn. This respondent has shown her
ignorance and has also submitted that on that reason the petition was
dismissed on 25.07.2018.
15. In the cross examination, she has further admitted that she resided
with the applicant for four to five months. In para-17, she has denied the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
8 CRR-5531-2024
suggestion that the demand of dowry was made to her and also stated that she
was not harassed any how.
16. The applicant of this case Jitendra Chouhan (NAW-1) has stated
that after marriage, she resided along with him for two days. His brother
went to brought her when she had gone to her parental house along with gold
chain, Mangalsutra and silver pajeb. When he again went to bring the
respondent from her parental house, she came to Indore and she stated that
her health is not proper and on the next day doctor was consulted and in that,
she stated that she has to go to Bhopal and visit Dr. Malviya on that he
brought his wife Sangeeta to Bhopal and she stayed there for 1 to 1.5
months. He again went to Bhopal to bring Sangeeta to her matrimonial
house. She came and misbehaved with the child Vansh and when he returned
in the evening, his mother told to him about the incident and when he
inquired from the respondent/wife, she asked him to send her parental house.
He told the incident to his mother-in-law and on that his mother-in-law has
stated that transfer two acres of land and residential house of Indore in the
name of Sangeeta, otherwise, she will not reside with him and threatened him
to implicate in the case, hence, he lodged the FIR in the Police Station –
Hiranagar.
17. The respondent/wife has challenged the registration of FIR and that
was withdrawn after arguing for sometimes. In the year 2016, she had filed a
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and
also filed an application for amount maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. and that was also dismissed and after that revision was also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
9 CRR-5531-2024
dismissed. His wife was resided only for seven days and since 2016 she is
residing separate in her parental house.
18. In para -8 of his cross examination, this witness has admitted that a
case under Section 498-A of the IPC is pending against him and his family
members. He has filed an application for divorce with his wife/respondent.
His wife has also filed an application for the search warrant in which his wife
has alleged that they were demanding the dowry.
19. From the above facts, if all taken into consideration, it is a case that
the applicant has already two children with his first wife and his first wife left
him and respondent has left her first husband and thus from both sides, it was
the second marriage. It is also clear from the record that the respondent/wife
failed to produce any copy of FIR lodged against her husband in any Police
Station. Whereas the contents of Ex.D-3 are taken into consideration, the
applicant/husband has filed the FIR alleging that the respondent/wife resided
only seven days in his house and just after that started making pressure to
transfer two acres of land and residential house in her name and threatened to
implicate him in the false case of demand of dowry and this case was
registered and the charge sheet was submitted against the respondent/wife
and his father, mother and maternal uncle.
20. Looking to the aforesaid, it is not a simple case where the police
has registered the FIR. From perusal of the documents annexed with charge
sheet, CSP Pardesipura has written to SP East Indore and they returned that
communication, sent by SP, East Indore to CSP Pardesipura, on that CSP
Pardesipura has further written a letter to SP East Indore and after that on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
10 CRR-5531-2024
04.04.2017, SP East Indore has ordered to register the FIR and after
investigation, the case was registered.
21. Thus, when the case was registered, the communication has also
taken place between the Additional SP, Zone-1, Bhopal and IG, Bhopal,
Zone – Bhopal regarding the complaint of Jitendra Chouhan and report in this
regard was submitted by Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bhopal to IG,
Bhopal. A a counseling was conducted in which the respondent Sangeeta was
not ready to live with her husband and wanted to prosecute as per the law
and it was found that as per the Police Officer, the applicant has exaggerated
the her case.
22. Thus, when it is clear that on the same facts the allegation against
the respondent/wife, the FIR has already been registered by the Police
against her and case of respondent was found false, therefore, the trial Court
as well as Appellate Court has committed error concluding that the
respondent was the victim of domestic violence.
23. Furthermore, it is also clear that the applicant was in need of
marriage as he is having two children and to take care of his children and
family, he has married to the respondent.
24. Looking to the charge sheet Ex.D-3, that is filed under Sections
120B, 384, 417 and 496 of the IPC with the allegation that respondent and
her family members were threatening to the applicant to implicate in the
false case and to make him into judicial custody and for extortion of money
conspiring with the family members, there is a probability of cruelty in the
favour of applicant/husband not in wife. No FIR was lodged by the wife, just
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34563
11 CRR-5531-2024
after leaving the matrimonial house. It is also worth mentioned in general,
the second marriage takes place and as stated in the affidavit of the parties in
Ex.D-2 executed on 14.12.2015, there is clear mention that no dowry was
demanded and dowry was not provided and the wife has also not brought any
gold or silver ornaments from her parental house, hence, the demand of
dowry could not be believed.
25. No doubt as per the law cited and held in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the application under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable, though the
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been dismissed but from the
factual aspect, it is clear that respondent/wife has failed to prove that the
domestic violence was committed with her.
26. Hence, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the
trial Court affirmed by the Appellate Court is quashed.
27. Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is also quashed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
DPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 29-07-2025
19:11:03