Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Noorjahan Bano vs Mansor Ahmad on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33221
1 CRR-226-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 226 of 2024
SMT. NOORJAHAN BANO AND OTHERS
Versus
MANSOR AHMAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Neeraj Ashar - Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Salim Ahmad - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the basic
difficulty against the applicant is that, after the demise of her husband, the
respondents have thrown her from her residential house and they are having
possession. The sell agreement was made but the full consideration amount
was not paid and civil suit has been filed and thus, the respondents are
enjoying the fruits of her house and are not giving her any maintenance or
residential relief. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant be given possession
till the disposal of the civil suit and as per the judgment of the civil suit, she
will be bound to comply that. Learned counsel for the applicant has also
submitted that it is a clear case of causing domestic violence against the
widow by her in-laws.
2. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
there is no case of domestic violence and the trial Court as well as Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33221
2 CRR-226-2024
Court has clearly discussing all these facts and has dismissed the application.
3. He further submitted that as per agreement (Exhibit-D/1), a sale-
deed was executed between Mansor Ahmed and husband of the applicant and
the possession was given as per exhibit-D/2 by the applicant herself. Civil
suit is pending between the parties. No case of domestic violence is made
out.
4. I have gone through the judgment of the trial as well as Appellate
Court.
5. Victim Noor Jahan (PW-1) in her statement has stated that after
demise of her husband, the respondents started harassing her. She borrowed
Rs.7,00,000/- for the treatment of her husband and to return the money, they
were constantly harassing her. Her husband had sold the share of house at
Rs.14,00,000/- in which, Rs.7,00,000/- was paid by the respondents and for
the rest of Rs.7,00,000/- amount of consideration, the respondents are not
paying.
6. After the demise of her husband, she is residing along with her
sister at Mohariya, Police Station-Hanumantal. Respondents are making
demand to pay Rs.7,00,000/- and stated that after that they will permit the
applicant to reside with them.
7. In the cross-examination, she has stated that this fact is wrongly
mentioned that she is being harassed due to not giving the birth to a child and
also this fact is wrongly mentioned in her application that she is not giving
the birth to a male child. She has also admitted that as per exhibit-D/2,
adjusting Rs.2,00,000/- of that deed, the respondent had to pay only
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33221
3 CRR-226-2024
Rs.5,00,000/-. She has also admitted that as per exhibit-D/1, the front writing
was made during the lifetime of her husband and after, in the back portion of
the document, receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- was made after the demise of her
husband. She has also admitted that in exhibit-D/2 that is a receipt of the
possession of the house bears her signature. She has also admitted that she
has purchased a house from Wasim on 04.08.2018 and after that she sold
him. She has purchased a land and she has a residential house in village
Baitla Ambedkar Nagar, Adhartal, District-Jabalpur. She has also admitted
that she has not filed any receipt of rent as alleged by her.
8. Thus, it is clear that as per Exhibit-D/2, the applicant herself has
handed over the vacant possession of a room that was in her possession after
the death of her husband on 27.11.2018 and she has taken out all her
belongings.
9. From Exhibit-D-1, it is clear that Maksood Ahmed husband of this
applicant as admitted by this applicant, executed an agreement in favour of
Mansoor Ahmed/respondent no.1 to sell his share of the house that was
admeasuring 550 sq.ft. in which, the half share was of deceased Maksood
Ahmed and the consideration of sale was at Rs.14,00,000/- and as per that on
the date of agreement on 28.02.2018, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and it was
scheduled on 01.04.2018, Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid and on 01.07.2018,
Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid and on 28.12.2018 rest of Rs.7,00,000/- will be paid
and as per the endorsement that has been referred to the applicant in her
cross-examination, Rs.2,00,000/- be paid on 07.08.2018, Rs.1,00,000/- was
paid on 09.08.2018.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33221
4 CRR-226-2024
10. Mansoor Ahmed (NAW-1) in his examination-in-chief has stated
that the applicant and the brother of the deceased executed an agreement to
sell the share of his ancestral house and on Rs.14,00,000/-, Rs.7,00,000/- has
already been paid and rest of the amount has been paid to applicant Noor
Jahan. When the sell agreement was made, his brother had told him that he
has all the documents of the title in his possession but when the documents
were demanded, the applicant and her husband has stated that they have no
document. The applicant has falsely stated that she has a child from her
husband whereas, no child was born to applicant from that wedlock. He has
filed a civil suit for recovery of the advance money that was given in
response to agreement to sell.
11. In paragraph no.5, this witness has admitted that they were
residing in the same house under the same roof and has also admitted that
they were cooking their food separate. This witness has also admitted that
applicant has lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station-Hanumantal for broking the
lock but has stated that she has lodged the false report.
12. This witness has also admitted that House No.3102/31 was a joint
house of three brothers and the partition was made in 2015. He has signed
exhibit-P/2 and as per exhibit-P/2, Mansoor Ahmed and Maksood Ahmed
had paid Rs.2,50,000/- to Manzoor Ahmed and purchased his share and thus,
the property became the joint ownership of this applicant and the brother of
the deceased. The applicant has taken his household articles in tempo and
denied the suggestion that he has sold the household articles of the applicant.
13. From the above discussion, the factual position appears from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33221
5 CRR-226-2024
evidence and the document is that the husband of the applicant were three
brothers Manzoor Ahmed, Maksood Ahmed and Mansoor Ahmed and as per
the family partition (Exhibit-P/2), the house no.3102 situated in front of
Talib Shah Mazar Pasiyana, Jabalpur area was 715 sq.ft. and the house was
so small that three families could not reside in that, hence, the three brothers
make arrangement and brothers Maksood Ahmed and Mansoor Ahmed have
paid Rs.5,00,000/- to their brother Manzoor Ahmed and he has left his share
and thus, the property become the joint ownership of Maksood Ahmed and
Mansoor Ahmed.
14. Later on, Maksood Ahmed executed an agreement to sale in favour
of the respondent Mansoor Ahmed and by which, he proposed to sell his
share of the house on consideration amount of Rs.14,00,000/- in which,
Rs.1,00,000/- was paid at a time and alleged that, thus, Rs.8,00,000/- was
paid. As per exhibit-D/2, on 27.11.2018, Noor Jahan has left the vacant
possession of that house and handed over the possession of the room to
respondent no.1.
15. As per exhibit-P/4, the applicant was residing in Bhantalaiya, thus,
the applicant herself has left the vacant possession of the house and as per the
agreement (exhibit-D/1), agreement to sale was executed though, the whole
consideration amount has not been paid and there is dispute regarding
possession and passing of the consideration to seller and subsequently, to his
wife.
16. From the argument, it is also clear that the respondent no.1 has
filed a civil suit before the competent Civil Court. Thus, it could not be said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33221
6 CRR-226-2024
that the applicant has been thrown away from her shared house and it is also
clear from the statement of the applicant herself that she has purchased the
separate plot and land and after that, she has sold that plot. She also has a
house in Baitla Ambedkar Nagar Adhartal, Jabalpur and thus, it appears that
there is only the dispute regarding the sale agreement and possession over
that.
17. Looking to all these aspects, the applicant failed to prove that
domestic violence has been committed by the respondents against her. The
applicant is entitled to live in her share of household.
18. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
