Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Kamlesh Chandrawat vs Smt Laxmibai Chandrawat on 27 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5244
1 CRR-744-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 744 of 2020
SMT KAMLESH CHANDRAWAT
Versus
SMT LAXMIBAI CHANDRAWAT
Appearance:
Shri Khiladi Lal Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure assails the order dated 21.11.2019 by 6th Additional Sessions
Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.221/2019 whereby the order dated
05.10.2019 in MJC No.32/2019 (Smt. Kamlesh vs. Anil Chandrawat & Ors.)
by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain has been set aside.
0 2 . It is not disputed that applicant Smt. Kamlesh Chandrawat was
married to Anil Chandrawat as per Hindu rites on 13.04.2005 and customs
and out of the said wedlock, she has one daughter Krishna and son Madhav.
She had contracted love marriage and due to this, she was being harassed by
her mother-in-law and members of the family. After marriage she came to
know that her first husband is having illicit relationship with her sister
Sunita. She tried to persuade her husband for discontinuing this relationship,
but he did not pay any heed. She was being physically and mentally harassed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5244
2 CRR-744-2020
on daily basis. For this, she filed police complaints, but her husband tried to
expel her from the shared household along with her children. She wants to
continue to reside with her children where she is living. For this she is
claiming relief of maintenance and protecting herself from domestic
violence, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act, 2005).
03. By filing joint written reply, Anil Chandrawat, husband of the
applicant, Mangilal Chandravat father-in-law and Laxmibai and mother-in-
law of the applicant opposed the complaint and on an application under
Section 23 of the Act, an order dated 11.01.2019 was passed whereby the
respondents were restrained from evicting the applicant from the house
where she was residing with her children. This order remained
unchallenged.
0 4 . Mother-in-law of the applicant Laxmibai filed an application
dated 28.08.2019 in the aforesaid MJC No.52/2018 stating that she has
already dispossessed the applicant Kamlesh and her husband Anil from her
property. Despite that the applicant is unauthorisedly living in the house of
respondent No.3 which is House No.12, Shipra Colony, Gayatri Nagar, Near
Police Station - Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain. Since off and on the applicant
Smt. Kamlesh calls police which causes embarrassment to the respondent
No.3 Laxmibai, therefore, she is residing with her elder son Rajendra
Chandravat. Since Rajendra Chandravat resides with his family along with
his younger brother Manoj Chandravat's family, it causes inconvenience to
respondent No.3 Laxmibai and her husband, therefore, she claimed relief of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5244
3 CRR-744-2020
dispossessing the applicant from the aforesaid house and handing it over to
respondent No.3 Laxmibai. This application was dismissed vide order dated
05.10.2019 by Judicial Magistrate First Class . This order was assailed in
appeal No.185/2019 before 6th additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, who by
impugned order dated 21.11.2019 set aside the order passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class on the ground that applicant Smt. Kamlesh has
claimed a maintenance against her husband who has been directed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class to get a rented house and keep the applicant
along with him, therefore, she cannot claim as a right to reside with her
mother-in-law.
05. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier order dated
11.01.2019 has attained finality whereby the respondents were restrained
from dispossessing the applicant from the house where she was residing with
her children as it has not been challenged before the appropriate forum.
Respondents are acting hand-in-globe hatching a conspiracy against the
applicant as the respondents have filed a joint reply to oppose the application
filed by the applicant under Section 23 of the Act. Jahir Suchna whereby the
respondent Laxmibai as allegedly dispossessing the applicant and her
husband from her property is merely an eyewash to deprive the applicant
from residing in shared household. The judgment passed by 6th Additional
Sessions Judge is bad-in-law which cannot be sustained. For this, he has
relied upon the judgment dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Apex Court in S.
Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner (AIR Online 2020 SC 897) and also
the judgment dated 18.03.2024 passed by Bombay High Court in Sanjivani
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5244
4 CRR-744-2020
Jayesh Seernani vs. Kavita Shyam Seernani & Ors. [W.P. (Lodging)
No.28282 of 2023]. On these premises, learned counsel for the applicant
prays by allowing the petition set aside the impugned judgment dated
21.11.2019 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.
06. Per contra, counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the
prayer on the ground that the applicant would not point out any illegality or
irregularity in the impugned judgment. She has no right to reside in the
house of her mother-in-law against her wishes, therefore, learned counsel
prays for dismissal of the revision petition as it sans merit.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
0 8 . It is not in dispute that in MJC No.52/2018 registered on the
complaint of applicant vide order dated 11.01.2019, the respondents were
restrained from dispossessing the applicant from the house where she was
residing with her children. That order remained unchallenged and, therefore,
attained finality. Learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge by relying upon the
judgments passed in S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169,
Meenakshi Jatav vs. Dr. Smt. Seema Shehar, ILR 2013 M.P. 729, S.R. Batra
@ Tehmima Qureshi vs. Sajiya Qureshi, 2010 (1) MPHT 133, Smt. Jyoti
Parihar vs. Munindra Singh Parihar, 2011(3) MPHT 531 and Vimla Ben Ajit
Bhai Patel vs. Vasanta Ben Ashok Bhai Patel (2008) 4 SCC 649 has gone
into the merits of the case in holding that daughter-in-law has no right of
residence in the house of mother-in-law. She has the right to reside in the
joint family house wherein her husband has right to reside. These facts are
still to be decided after recording of the evidence. In the admitted factual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5244
5 CRR-744-2020
matrix when applicant as daughter-in-law of the respondent Laxmibai and
Mangilal has been residing in the disputed house, she cannot be left in lurch
by dispossessing her from the aforesaid house, without making proper
arrangement for her and her children's residence.
0 9 . In the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is of the considered
view that Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality in reversing the
order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class.
Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order is hereby
set aside by restoring the order dated 05.10.2019 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in MJC No.32/2019 (Smt. Kamlesh vs. Anil
Chandrawat & Ors.).
10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and disposed of.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya
