[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mirza Khalid Baig S/O Mirza Sujat Baig ... vs Fouziya Mariyam W/O Mirza Khalid Baig on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36330
*1* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4050 OF 2024
1. Mirza Khalid Baig S/o
Mirza Sujat Baig
Age: 48 years,
Occu: Medical Practitioner
(at present bed ridden)
R/o: Near Balbhim Chowk, Beed,
TQ- & Dist- Beed.
2. Akhtar Sultana W/o Mirza Shujat Baig
Age-62 Years, Occ- Household,
R/o as above.
3. Mirza Mujahid Baig
S/o Mirza Shujat Baig
Age-48 Years, Occ- Medical Practitioner,
R/o: Street No. 13, Near Saeeda Masjid,
Rahemaniya Colony, Jaswantpura,
Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad).
4. Mirza Asmatara Anjum
D/o Mirza Shujat Baig
Age-37 Years, Occ- Medical Practitioner,
R/o: R/o: Near Balbhim Chowk, Beed,
TQ- & Dist- Beed.
5. Humeraara Anjum
D/o Mirza Shujat Baig
Age-46 Years, Occ- Household,
R/o Balbhim Chowk, Beed,
Tq- & Dist- Beed.
6. Ahmed Baig
S/o Mujahid Baig
Age-18 Years, Occ- Education,
R/o Balbhim Chowk,
*2* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
Beed, Tq- & Dist- Beed.
7. Husna Asmatara
D/o Mirza Shujat Baig
Age-44 Years, Occ- Household,
R/o Plot No. 75, Times Colony,
Aurangabad, Tq- & Dist- Aurangabad.
8. Sarvatara Anjum
D/o Mirza Shujat Baig
Age-43 Years, Occ- Service,
R/o: Times Colony, Aurangabad,
Tq- & Dist- Aurangabad.
...APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
Fouziya Mariyam
W/o Mirza Khalid Baig
Age-39 Years, Occ- Household,
R/o Labour Colony, Nanded,
Tq- & Dist- Nanded.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2666 OF 2025
1. Mirza Khalid Baig
S/o Mirza Shujat Baig,
Age: 48 years,
Occu: Medical Practitioner.
2. Akhtar Sultana
W/o Mirza Shujat Baig,
Age: 79 years, Occu: Household.
Both R/o: Near Balbhim Chowk, Beed.
...APPLICANTS
- VERSUS -
Fouziya Mariyyam
*3* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
W/o Mirza Khalid Baig,
Age: 39 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o: C/o: Imran Mujeeb Pasha,
Opposite Hanuman Mandir, Shivajinagar,
Nanded Tq & Dist: Nanded.
...RESPONDENT
...
Shri G.R. Syed, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Rahil R. Kazi, Advocate for the sole respondent.
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
Reserved on : 15 December 2025
Pronounced on : 19 December 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. As both these applications arise from the
matrimonial dispute between applicant No.1/ husband (Mirza
Khalid Baig) and the sole respondent/ wife (Fouziya Mariyam
Baig), they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Application No.4050/2024 is filed by the
applicants for quashing the criminal proceedings bearing
PWDVA No.79/2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nanded, filed by the respondent/wife.
Criminal Application No.2666/2025 is filed by the applicants for
transferring RCC No.1627/2024 pending on the file of the
learned JMFC, Nanded, to the Court of the learned JMFC, Beed.
*4* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
3. In Criminal Application No.4050/2024, applicant
No.1 is the husband of the sole respondent, whereas, applicant
No.2 is mother of the husband, applicant No.3 is brother,
applicant Nos.4 and 5 are sisters, applicant No.6 is the son of
applicant No.3, applicant Nos.7 and 8 are married sisters of
applicant No.1/ husband. In Criminal Application No.2666/2025,
applicant No.1 is the husband of the sole respondent and
applicant No.2 is the mother of husband.
4. According to the applicants, the marriage of
applicant No.1 and the respondent took place on 18.01.2021 and
it is the second marriage of applicant No.1. The husband was
required to perform the second marriage on account of death of
first wife in Covid-19 pandemic and he is having two children
from the first marriage. Sole purpose of marrying the respondent/
wife was to take proper care and nourishment of girls born out of
the first marriage. On 08.11.2021, the husband suffered an
accident and he was hospitalized for about two months. Though
he survived, however, he suffered various ailments and as a
result, he is bedridden. However, on 13.06.2023, the respondent/
wife has filed the criminal proceedings bearing PWDVA
*5* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
No.79/2023 before the learned JMFC at Nanded with sole
intention to harass the husband and his relatives.
5. According to the applicants, on 18.08.2023 the
respondent/ wife has also filed FIR bearing Crime No.272/2023
with Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge sheet came to
be filed and the case is registered as R.C.C. No.1627/2024 before
the learned JMFC at Nanded.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
sides and with their assistance, I have gone through the contents
of the PWDVA proceedings. During the course of hearing, when
I was not inclined to entertain Criminal Application
No.4050/2024 in respect of applicant No.1/husband, the learned
advocate for the applicants sought permission to withdraw the
application to the extent of applicant No.1.
7. After going through the PWDVA proceedings, it is
revealed that the respondent/ wife has levelled allegations against
all in-laws in general and omnibus manner, so as to harass them.
It is pointed out that after filing of PWDVA proceedings, the
*6* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
respondent has also filed FIR bearing Crime No.272/2023 with
the Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded, for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and the said proceedings are culminated in
RCC No.1627/2024. The Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.06.2025 passed in Criminal Application No.4000/2024
(Mirza Khalid Baig and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another), quashed the said FIR as well as RCC No.1627/2024 to
the extent of other applicants, excluding the husband and mother-
in-law.
8. Upon a specific query to the learned advocate for the
respondent as to whether, the allegations, which are levelled by
the respondent/ wife in the PWDVA proceedings, are same as
that of the allegations in the FIR, the learned advocate fairly
conceded that the said allegations do not find place in the FIR,
which was lodged subsequently. It is, therefore, clear that the
allegations as regards harassment and mental torture have not
been reported to the police though the FIR was filed
subsequently.
9. However, the learned advocate for the respondent
*7* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
tried to justify that there are allegations against all the applicants,
therefore, the proceedings may not be quashed and set aside. The
learned advocate has taken me through all paragraphs of the
PWDVA complaint and stated that the respondent/ wife has
sufficiently quoted specific events and instances as regards
harassment meted out to her.
10. The learned advocate for the applicants has,
however, invited attention of this Court to the prayers of
PWDVA proceedings. According to him, the respondent/ wife
has claimed maintenance. Even if the PWDVA complaint is to be
considered positively, the fact remains that the maintenance
would be payable, if any, by the applicant/ husband alone and not
by other applicants. Therefore, there is no hurdle in quashing the
proceedings against other applicants.
11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view
that the case is made out for quashing the proceedings against the
applicants excluding applicant No.1/husband.
12. As regards Criminal Application No.2666/2025, the
learned advocate for the applicants submitted that applicant
No.1/ husband is virtually bedridden and he has also annexed
*8* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
medical papers. In view of his ailment, it is impossible for
applicant No.1/husband to attend the Court at Nanded from
Beed.
13. On the contrary, the learned advocate for the
respondent/wife, also filed certain documents to suggest that the
respondent is also suffering from major disease and, therefore, it
is also not possible for her to travel to Beed from Nanded.
14. On perusal of the medical papers, it is revealed that
the respondent/wife is advised by the doctors to do PET CT scan
and biopsy.
15. Considering the above and since both the husband
and wife have serious medical issues, instead of transferring the
case, it would be appropriate if they are allowed to avail the
video conferencing facility for the purpose of attending the court.
16. Hence, the following order:-
(a) Criminal Application No.4050/2024 is partly
allowed and the proceedings bearing PWDVA No.79/2023
pending on the file of the learned JMFC, Nanded, are quashed
and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 8. Accordingly,
*9* 31appln4050o24&2666o25
Criminal Application No.4050/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn to
the extent of applicant No.1/husband.
(b) Criminal Application No.2666/2025 is partly
allowed. The applicants are permitted to attend the proceedings
bearing RCC No.1627/2024 pending on the file of the learned
JMFC, Nanded, through video conferencing facility. The
concerned JMFC Courts at Nanded and Beed shall make
appropriate arrangement if the parties approach for availing
video conferencing facility. Exemption application, if any filed,
shall be considered sympathetically and the Court shall not insist
for presence of the parties except needed and if possible,
evidence may also be recorded through video conferencing.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
