MP High Court: Husband’s Plea for Restitution of Conjugal Rights Is No Ground to Quash Dowry Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused to quash a dowry harassment case against a husband, holding that his filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights does not, by itself, make his wife’s FIR a “counterblast”. At the same time, the Court quashed the case against his mother and two sisters, finding the allegations against them “vague, general and omnibus in nature”.

Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal, on September 24, partly allowed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 482 of CrPC) by Mohd Kalim and three family members. They had sought to quash the FIR in Crime No. 40/2024, registered at Police Station Nohta in Damoh district, for offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the pending proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Damoh.

According to the petitioners, Kalim married the complainant on December 6, 2020, and the couple had a child. A dispute allegedly arose because the wife consumed tobacco and gutkha. When Kalim asked her to stop, she went to her parental home and did not return. He then moved a Family Court in Jabalpur under Muslim law seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and in RCS-A No. 144/2023, a judgment dated March 10, 2026, directed her to live with him. She still did not return, they said.

Advocate Vivek Kumar Pandey, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the FIR, lodged on January 29, 2024, was a “counterblast” filed after an unexplained delay. He added that Kalim’s sisters, one married and one unmarried, would see their futures spoiled if the case continued. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in D. Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, decided on September 13, 2024.

Opposing the plea, Advocate Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad, appearing for the wife, submitted that she was harassed over dowry, which forced her to leave her matrimonial home. He said she was willing to live with her husband but was staying away owing to a threat to her life. Deputy Government Advocate Ravindra Shukla appeared for the State.

The Court was not persuaded by the counterblast argument. It noted that no document showed that notice of the restitution proceedings was served on the wife, or that she knew of them, before the FIR was registered. “In the absence of any such material, it cannot be held that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the said proceedings,” the Court observed. It added that the FIR contained “specific and clear allegations against the husband”.

The Court held that the husband’s civil action offered no shield. “The filing of such an application does not constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings,” it said.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal and Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in Y. Sham Kumar v. State of A.P. Quoting Pratibha, the Court noted that criminal and civil proceedings “are separate and independent”.

The Court also made a notable observation on a wife’s silence in a troubled marriage. “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,” it said.

Finding specific allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the husband, the Court held that offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out. The petition was dismissed as far as Kalim was concerned.

The position was different for the other petitioners. The Court found no specific allegations against the sisters-in-law, Kaushar Bee and Ku. Gudiya alias Samina, or the mother-in-law, Amina Bee. It accordingly quashed the FIR and all the consequential proceedings in Crime No. 40/2024 against all three women.

Case Title: Mohd Kaleem and Others vs. The State of MP and Others 

Order Date: September 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal