Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. V. Krishnamma vs Garima Bais on 16 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39973 of 2024
SMT. V. KRISHNAMMA AND OTHERS
Versus
GARIMA BAIS
Appearance:
Shri A. Velan along with Shri Prakahar Shukla - Advocates for the
petitioners.
Shri Sudhir Dandawate, Advocate for the respondent.
___________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 04/12/2025
Pronounced on : 16/02/2026
___________________________________________________________
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 / 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners in case number MJCR 1860/2024 pending before the learned JMFC, Indore under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2] This is the second round of hearing of this petition as this petition was earlier dismissed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 10/12/2024, holding the same to not maintainable u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., however, the SLP (Crl.) No.9534/2025 preferred by the petitioners against Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 16-02-2026 14:05:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 2 the said order was allowed of by the Supreme Court by setting aside the order passed by this Court on 10.12.2024, and the matter has been remanded back to this court for its fresh consideration on merits. 3] The aforesaid application u/s.12 is filed by the respondent wife seeking the following reliefs:-
**01 ;g fd] izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18 ds vuqlkj laj{k.k vkns'k iznku djrs gqos izfrizkFkhZx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZuh ds lkFk ngst dh ekax ,oa mldh iwfrZ ugh gksus ds dkj.k 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r ugh djs lkFk gh izfrizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZuh dks lw[kiwoZd fuokl djus ns ,oa mlds lkFk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ?kjsyw fgalk dkfjr ugh djsA
02 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ¼1½¼p½ ds vuqlkj bUnkSj 'kgj esa fuokl ds fy;s vkuqdfYid okl dh lqfo/kk ;k mlds fy, :i;s 25]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s iPphl gtkj½ izfrekg fdjk;s dk lank; djus laca/kh vkns'k iznku fd;k tkosA izfrizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd izkFkhZuh dks mlds csaxyq: ¼dukZVd½ fLFkr & ,&44] d`".kk fyxslh vikVZesaV] 14 dzkWl jksM+] vkj-Vh- uxj] csaxyq: ¼dukZVd½ esa Hkh 'kkafriw.kZ <ax ls fuokl djus ns mDr Q~ysV ls izkFkhZuh dks fudkys tkus laca/kh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ voS/kkfud dk;Z ugh djs vkSj uk gh fcuk izkFkhZuh ds vuqefr ds mDr Q~ysV esa izos"k djsA 03 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20¼1½ ¼d½ ,oa ¼[k½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZuh ds [kkuk] diM+k] nokbZ;kWa rFkk vU; ewyHkwr vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ ds fy;s :i;s 2]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s nks yk[k½ izfrekg ,oa vU; ?kjsyw [kpZ ds fy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ¼1½ ¼?k½ vuqlkj :i;s 2]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s nks yk[k½ izfrekg izfrizkFkhZx.k ls fnyok;s tkosA 04 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ¼1½ ¼x½ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZuh ds fu;a=.k ls izkFkhZuh ds L=h/ku dks gVkus ls izkFkhZuh dks gqbZ gkfu ds :i esa :i;s 70]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s lRrj yk[k dsoy½ izfrizkFkhZx.k ls izkFkhZuh dks fnyok;k tkosA 05 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 ds vuqlkj izkFkhZuh ds lkFk izfrizkFkhZx.k ds } kjk dkfjr dh xbZ ?kjsyw fgalk ds ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZuh dks gqbZ ekufld ,oa HkkoukRed {kfr ds :i esa :i;s 5]00]00]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s ikWap djksM+ dsoy½ izfrizkFkhZx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA 06 vU; lgk;rk tks Hkh ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s fnyokbZ tkosA** (emphasis supplied) 4] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the in-laws of Garima Bais W/o Shivkumar Govindraju Patel, as the petitioner no.1 is her mother-in-law, petitioner No.2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are her brothers-in-law and petitioner No.3, 6 and 8 are sister-in-law.
5] Shivkumar's marriage with the respondent Garima Bais was solemnised on 30/01/2020, at Bangalore as per Hindu rituals. According to the petitioners, soon after the marriage, the couple started residing separately, and also rented a flat in Bangalore at A-44, Krishna Legacy Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 16-02-2026 14:05:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 3 Apartment, 14th Cross Road, Near BDA Complex, Opposite Corporation Bank ATM, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore as the respondent also registered her business on the said address, substantiating the petitioners' contentions that the respondent was residing with her husband only, separately from the present petitioners.
6] It is further the case of the petitioners that sometimes after the marriage, the relationship of Garima with Shivkumar deteriorated, resulting in the marital discord, and a complaint was also filed by her on 15/03/2024, at Sanjay Nagar, North Women Police Station, Bangalore alleging demand of dowry by her husband, in which, no allegations of any kinds were made against the family members of the husband. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent also filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.158/2024 seeking injunction against her dispossession from the rented premises. In the said suit the petitioner has also admitted that she and her husband were living separately since their marriage. Subsequently, an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was also filed by the respondent, as also an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking various reliefs, which according to the petitioners, was filed only to further harass them. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid proceedings under s.12 of the DV Act of 2005, the present petition has been filed.
7] Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations made against them in the entire complaint without any substantive proof to support the same and various reliefs have been sought only to extract the money from the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners never resided with the respondent in a shared household as prescribed under Section 17 of the DV Act. 8] Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this court Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 16-02-2026 14:05:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 4 to the pleadings made by the respondent in the civil suit filed by her in the court of City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore wherein she has clearly stated that soon after her marriage, she was residing separately in a flat with her husband Shivkumar Govindraju, thus, it is submitted that the petitioners have always resided separately and never resided with the respondent even as per her own saying.
9] Hence, it is submitted that since it is not a case respondent wife residing with the petitioners in a shared household, the petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings be quashed. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of T.K. Krishnan and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2019 SCC Online Mad 20746, Surendra Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine All 827, Manage Ram vs. State of M.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681 and Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 667. 10] Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners herein are the disputed question of facts and this Court cannot decide the lis between the parties at this juncture. Counsel has also submitted that even though the flat was taken on rent by the respondent and her husband, however in front of their flat, her husband's brother also had taken a flat and he also used to live with his family, and they also used to harass the respondent by making illegal demands and asking to do all the household work. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1. 11] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12] On due consideration of submissions as advanced by learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 16-02-2026
14:05:48
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 5
for the parties and on perusal of the documents filed on record and more particularly the reliefs sought by the respondent in her application under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, it is found that the respondent's main grievance is that she should not be dispossessed from the flat in which she was residing with her husband while in Bangalore i.e., A-44, Krishna Legacy Apartment, 14th Cross Road, Near BDA Complex, Opposite Corporation Bank ATM, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore, and in addition to that, she has also sought various compensation under various heads. It is also found that in the initial lis between the parties namely, the plaint filed on behalf of the respondent under Order 7 Rule 1 and 3 of CPC read with Section 26 of CPC against her husband Shivkumar Govindraju Patel,, she had made the following prayer:-
"WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendant and direct the defendant a) Not to dispossess the plaintiff from the matrimonial home and to take care of the basic needs of the plaintiff. b) And pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the suit and award costs in the interest of justice.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable Property bearing Flat No.44, on the fourth floor in 'A' Block, in the building constructed known as ''KRISHNA LEGACY APARTMENTS'', consisting of three bedroom residential apartment, with a super Built up area of 1120 Sq. Ft., in the residential immovable property bearing BBMP/corporation No.400/6, 2nd Block, R.T. Nagar, BBMP Ward No.46."
13] In para 3 and 4 of the said plaint, the following averments have also been made:-
"3) The plaintiff submit that, the plaintiff hails from the state of Madhya Pradesh, Indore District and after marriage she had moved to Bangalore and has been living along with her husband/defendant. Parents and family members of the plaintiff are still residing at Indore. The plaintiff does no have cousins or relatives in Bangalore. The only person that she knows in Bangalore is the defendant.
4) The plaintiff further submits, from the date of the marriage the plaintiff and the defendant are living happily together as husband and wife in the above mentioned address. At, the time of marriage the defendant had received a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty Five Lakh) as dowry and gold. Later, the defendant Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 16-02-2026 14:05:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 6 started to neglect the plaintiff and was not taking care of the wellbeing of the plaintiff. The defendant started to torturing/harassing the plaintiff to get more money from her parental home. Due, to all this the plaintiff has got depress, anxiety issues and mental trauma. Now, the presently the plaintiff is undergoing treattment. In the wee hours around 1.00 AM the plaintiff was thrown out the matrimonial home by the defendant. Being unable to bare the acts of the defendant the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police station R.T. Nagar, the Station House Officer refused to register a complaint against the defendant.
The defendant being an influential person, an FIR was not registered against the defendant by the R.T. Nagar police station. Later, at about 2.45 AM the plaintiff had reached out to Women's Police Station North, Bangalore City. A complaint was lodged by the plaintiff against the defendant registered as Crime No.2/2024, dated 15/03/2024. The copy of the complaint and FIR is herewith produced as Document No.4 and 5."
(emphasis supplied) 14] This Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid admissions made by the respondent herself regarding her residential status along with her husband at Bangalore defies her claim that she was residing in a shared household along with the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners are admitting that they do not reside in the aforesaid flat i.e. A-44, Krishna Lgacy Apartment, 14th Cross Road, Near BDA Complex, Opposite Corporation Bank ATM, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore, whereas the respondent is treating the aforesaid flat as the shared household property. At the cost of repeatation, the relevant paras 1 & 2 of the relief clause are once again being reproduced here for the sake of convenience:-
**01 ;g fd] izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 18 ds vuqlkj laj{k.k vkns'k iznku djrs gqos izfrizkFkhZx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZuh ds lkFk ngst dh ekax ,oa mldh iwfrZ ugh gksus ds dkj.k 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r ugh djs lkFk gh izfrizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og izkFkhZuh dks lw[kiwoZd fuokl djus ns ,oa mlds lkFk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ?kjsyw fgalk dkfjr ugh djsA 02 izkFkhZuh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ¼1½¼p½ ds vuqlkj bUnkSj 'kgj esa fuokl ds fy;s vkuqdfYid okl dh lqfo/kk ;k mlds fy, :i;s 25]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s iPphl gtkj½ izfrekg fdjk;s dk lank; djus laca/kh vkns'k iznku fd;k tkosA izfrizkFkhZx.k dks ;g Hkh vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd izkFkhZuh dks mlds csaxyq: ¼dukZVd½ fLFkr & ,&44] d`".kk fyxslh vikVZesaV] 14 dzkWl jksM+] vkj-Vh- uxj] csaxyq: ¼dukZVd½ esa Hkh 'kkafriw.kZ <ax ls fuokl djus ns mDr Q~ysV ls izkFkhZuh dks fudkys tkus laca/kh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ voS/kkfud dk;Z ugh djs vkSj uk gh fcuk izkFkhZuh ds vuqefr ds mDr Q~ysV esa izos"k djsA** (emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 16-02-2026 14:05:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4693 7 15] It is also found that despite the fact that this is the second round of litigation as the matter has come back from the Supreme Court after it was remanded to this Court, the respondent has decided not to file any reply to the petition filed by the petitioners. Thus, all the documents filed by the petitioners have gone unrebutted and otherwise also the said documents are the plaint, or other applications filed by the respondent only. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioners herein never resided with the respondent in a shared household and in fact the respondent was residing at the aforesaid flat along with her husband Shivkumar Govindraju only, who is not a party to this petition.
16] In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petitioners have been wrongly arrayed as the defendants/non-applicants in the application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act.
17] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed, and the application filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent so far as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby quashed.
18] Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 16-02-2026
14:05:48