Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhala Ram vs Guddi Prajapat (2025:Rj-Jd:46640-Db) on 29 October, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:46640-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 226/2025
Bhala Ram S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near
Ramdev Temple, Jodhpur-Road, Osian, Jodhpur Rural
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
Guddi Prajapat D/o Kirta Ram Dadarwal, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village- Kinjari, Tehsil -Osian, Police Station Matoda, Dist
Jodhpur Rural Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhala Ram, appellant in person,
through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Singh Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
29/10/2025
1. Heard the appellant in person through VC and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
08.11.2024, whereby the application preferred by the appellant
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. The appellant
submits that in the criminal case filed by the respondent-wife, the
police after investigation did not find the charges sustainable and
therefore, a negative final report was filed. The learned trial Court
has also not found the allegations as sustainable against the
appellant and therefore, he has been acquitted of the allegations
made by the respondent-wife.
3. The appellant submits that once he has been acquitted in the
criminal case, the same allegations cannot be used in the
proceedings pending before the learned Family Court and
therefore, he prays that the proceedings preferred by the
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 11:27:41 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46640-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-226/2025]
respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') may be quashed and
set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no
question of same facts having been canvassed in the application
preferred under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 before the learned
Family Court and merely the judgment of the criminal court has
been cited in those proceedings and therefore, the same cannot
form the basis for allowing the application preferred by the
appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the
respondent further submits that application preferred under
Section 9 of the Act of 1955 by the respondent-wife ought to be
decided on its own merits and after giving reasonable opportunity
of hearing to the parties. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has
not committed any mistake while rejecting the application vide
order dated 08.11.2024.
5. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and we
have gone through the relevant record of the case including the
order impugned dated 08.11.2022.
6. True it is that in the criminal case, the learned Trial Court
did not find the allegations sustainable and therefore, has passed
an order of acquittal in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the
respondent wife has preferred an application under Section 9 of
the Act of 1955 and the same is pending consideration before the
learned Family Court, wherein the appellant has preferred an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the same
on the grounds that since the appellant has been acquitted in the
criminal case, therefore, the same facts cannot be used against
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 11:27:41 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46640-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-226/2025]
him in the application preferred under Section 9 of the Act of
1955.
7. We are of the considered view that merely the acquittal of
the appellant in the criminal case cannot form the basis for filing
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the learned
Family Court for rejection of the application preferred by the
respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. The learned
Trial Court has rightly discussed the entire facts and has come to
the conclusion that the application preferred under Section 9 of
the Act of 1955 by the respondent-wife will be decided on its own
merits and therefore, the acquittal in the criminal case cannot
form the basis for rejection of the application preferred by the
respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, application preferred
by the respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 is
required to be decided on its own facts merits and while deciding
the same, the factum of the acquittal of the appellant in the
criminal case shall also be taken into consideration but the same
cannot solely form the basis for dismissing the application
preferred under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 by the respondent-
wife.
9. In view of the discussion made above, there is no force in
the appeal and the same is dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
16-Anil/-
(Uploaded on 31/10/2025 at 11:27:41 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
