IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA st ON THE 1 OF NOVEMBER, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52372 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

1. SHRI VIJAY SWAMI S/O SHRI JAIRAM SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 43 BALAJI VIHAR 22 MACHADA NEW LOHA MANDI (RAJASTHAN)

2. SHRI JAIRAM SWAMI S/O LATE SHRI HANUMANDAS SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 43 BALAJI VIHAR 22 MACHADA, NEW LOHA MANDI. MURLIPURA, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

3. SMT. KAMLA DEVI W/O SHRI JAIRAM SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 43 BALAJI VIHAR 22 MACHADA, NEW LOHA MANDI, MURLIPURA, JAIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI BHAVDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. TRUPTY BAIRAGI D/O MANOHAR DAS BAIRAGI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: N.A. HX-1 (B)

ALKAPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI DAYA NATH PANDEY, ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The applicant / husband & two others have filed the present M.Cr.C.

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of proceedings in complaint case filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act of 2005) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam.

02. Facts of the case are that the applicant No.1 entered into a wedlock with respondent on 11.10.2017 at Ratlam as per Hindu Rights & Rituals. Both came in contact through matrimonial site (www.jeevansathi.com), in which they disclosed their status as divorcee. The respondent disclosed that previously she was married with one Bhupendra Ninama and took divorce on 03.09.2011. Likewise, applicant No.1 also shared details of his previous marriage and the divorce decree dated 03.09.2011.

03. The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of

2005 before the JMFC alleging that from the month of November, 2017, she was being assaulted in a hotel in Thailand on the pretext of false allegation of illicit relationship. Thereafter, she was confined in the hotel room and not permitted to meet the outsiders. She was subjected to cruelty for demand of Rs.25,00,000/-. Applicant No.1 used to assault her and she sustained fracture in the month of February, 2018. On 23.08.2018, she was sent to her parental house on the festival of Rathi. Thereafter, on 23.09.2018, she was again assaulted, and accordingly, she sought protection as well as maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month and and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for cruelty. The complaint was entertained and summons were issued to applicant No.1.

04. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant No.1 filed an application before the JMFC seeking quashment of proceedings of complaint but the same was rejected vide order dated 19.12.2019. Thereafter, he preferred a criminal revision and the same was also dismissed on 15.09.2020. Hence, present M.Cr.C. is before this Court solely on the ground that marriage dated 11.10.2017 is void as the respondent was married to one Ajay Bairagi resident of Dahod (Gujarat) and without taking divorce from him, she performed third marriage with applicant No.1, therefore, in absence of any domestic relationship with her, the complaint at her instance under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2005 is not maintainable and liable to be quashed.

05. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court which has been dismissed on the ground that marriage of the respondent with applicant No.1 is void ab initio. It is further submitted that in the proceedings before the Family Court, on 12.06.2019, she admitted that she did not take valid divorce from first husband.

06. Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005 defines for "aggrieved person"

according to which who is, or has been been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The "domestic relationship" is defined i