1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2005 passed by I ADJ, Dhar in case No. 3-N03 whereby the suit filed by the appellant for realisation of Rs.1 ,50,000/- was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that appellant and respondent are husband and wife. In the suit filed by the appellant, it was alleged that appellant was married with the respondent on 12.11.1994. The behaviour of the respondent was not cordial with the appellant as according to the appellant, she was involved in love with someone else and marriage took place against her wishes. It was further alleged that respondent requested the appellant to give divorce. It was also alleged that request was made by the respondent repeatedly and frequently and it was also offered that if the appellant agrees to give divorce to the respondent, then the respondent shall not claim Rs. 11,786/- as amount of Mehar, on the contrary, she will pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as consideration 'Talakul Kulah". It was further alleged in the plaint that upon the request of the respondent, appellant gave divorce to the respondent on 11.3.1995 and information was sent to the respondent by post and telephonically as well. Further case of the appellant was that the respondent with an oblique motive to defend the appellant after taking the divorce filed a petition under section 125 CrPC. On 28.3.1997 in the Court of JMFC, Dhar and also filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Dhar on 27.3.1997 which was registered as Civil Suit No. II-AI 97. It was alleged that both the cases were instituted by the respondent knowing it well that there is no cause against the appellant. It was further alleged that for contesting the case, appellant was compelled to come from Ahmedabad to Dhar on each and every date. It was further alleged that case instituted under section 125 CrPC was dismissed on 18.9.1997 and the civil suit was also dismissed on 19.9.1997. It was alleged that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation from the respondent. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing the written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was prayed that suit be dismissed.

3. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and dismissed the suit, against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Court below committed error of law in dismissing the suit. It is submitted that since the respondent prosecuted the cases maliciously, therefore, appellant is entitled for compensation but the learned Court below has wrongly denied the same.

5. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for respondent submits that suit itself was not maintainable. The proceedings initiated by the respondent were of civil nature. In the proceedings filed under section 125 CrPC also the prayer was for maintenance. Therefore, the nature of that proceedings was quasi criminal. It is submitted that for filing a suit on account of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is required to prove:

(i) that he was prosecuted by the defendant

(ii) that the prosecution terminated in favour of plaintiff

(iii) that prosecution was malicious and

(iv) that it was without probable and reasonable cause

It was further submitted that if any of the ingredients is missing, then the suit for malicious prosecution deserves to be dismissed. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of T. Subramanyam Bhatta v. A. Krishna Bhatta [AIR 1978 Kerala 111].

Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Genu Ganpati Shivale v. Bhalchand Jivraj Raisoni [AIR 1981 Bombay 170] wherein Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held that in order to succeed in establishing malicious abuse of civil proceedings, the plaintiff is required to prove a number of ingredients: (1) In the first place, malice must be proved. (2) Secondly, the plai