The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a husband’s application seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Muslim law cannot, by itself, justify quashing a criminal case filed by his wife alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal held that the husband had not established that the FIR was filed in retaliation for the matrimonial proceedings.
The Court dismissed the husband’s plea but quashed the criminal proceedings against his mother and two sisters-in-law, finding that the allegations against them lacked specific details.
Background
The husband approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenging an FIR registered at Nohta Police Station in Damoh district. The case involved allegations under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to the husband, the couple married in December 2020 and had a child. He claimed that marital disputes arose over his wife’s consumption of tobacco products. After she left the matrimonial home, he initiated proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court directed her to live with him in its March 10, 2026 judgment.
The husband argued that the FIR was a counterblast to those proceedings. The wife, however, alleged harassment and dowry demands, stating that she feared returning to the matrimonial home.
The Court found no documentary material establishing that the wife knew about the restitution proceedings before the FIR was registered. Therefore, the allegation that the criminal complaint was retaliatory could not be accepted merely on the basis of timing.
Justice Agrawal observed:
“Merely because husband has filed an application ‘Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights for judicial separation under the Muslim law, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The filing of such an application does not constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.”
The Court also noted that matrimonial proceedings and criminal proceedings must be decided on their own merits. Referring to the wife’s decision to remain silent while attempting to preserve her marriage, it observed:
“If wife maintains patience and silence with solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that it was her weakness. On the contrary, it shows her sincerity towards her marital life.”
The Court found specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the husband. However, the allegations against his mother and sisters-in-law were vague and general, without specific particulars establishing their individual roles.
The High Court refused to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings against the husband. It quashed the proceedings against his mother, Amina Bee, and sisters-in-law, Kaushar Bee and Ku. Gudiya alias Samina.
The petition was accordingly partly allowed
Case Details
Case Title: MK v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 41505 of 2024
Judge: Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal
Decision Date: September 24, 2026
