Monday, 13 July 2020

The provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 are applicable only against the husband and not against in-laws

The provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 are applicable only against the
husband and not against in-laws. It is clear that there is no
physical cruelty and it also appears that early pregnancy
became the cause of dispute and as per complainant there
was a telephonic call in which husband of the complainant
has sought to terminate the marriage.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.17691 OF 2020
(Rafique Ahmed and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 08.07.2020

Arguments heard.
O R D E R

This is first anticipatory bail application under Section
438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the
applicants namely; applicant No.1-Rafique Ahmed, applicant
No.2-Raeesa Bi and applicant No.3-Mohd. Raza as they are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime
No.391/2020 registered at Police Station-Vijay Nagar,
District-Indore (MP) for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of The Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
On the last occasion, learned counsel for the objector
had submitted that she would file certain documents and now
the aforesaid documents are placed on record.
Submissions were heard.
As per prosecution story, Nikah of complainant took
place with Hasan Multani on 03.11.2019 (complainant's
husband). However, it appears that some dispute arose due
to which she came back/turned out and the complainant
started staying in her parental house. As per complainant, on
29.03.2020, her husband pronounced Talaq thrice on
telephone and thereafter on 13.04.2020, an FIR was lodged
by the complainant against her husband.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants has invited
the Court's attention towards the complaint filed by husband
fearing some action on the part of complainant and this
complaint of husband was filed on 21.03.2020. The
document which the complainant has filed is an application
made to the Superintendent of Police, Indore, requesting
immediate arrest of the applicants in this matter. This
document is dated 15.06.2020. Learned senior counsel
submits that the applicants have filed the anticipatory bail
application on 10.06.2020 and this application has prompted
the complainant to file the application which is dated
15.06.2020.
Learned counsel for the objector as well as learned
counsel for the State have read over the FIR and stated that
after the Nikah when the complainant got pregnant her
mother-in-law i.e. applicant No.2-Raeesa Bi started alleging
that complainant got pregnant much earlier and the child
does not belong to her son and started asking for money
saying that the complainant has not given enough dowry to
the applicants and, thus, as per complainant, demand of
dowry was the main factor.
Per contra, learned senior counsel for the applicants
submits that as per complainant due to her early pregnancy
her character was being doubted and the marriage was
annulled by her husband then how the demand of dowry
could have been made after pronouncement of divorce ? He
further submits that FIR has been lodged more than a month
after the complainant went back to her parental house.
Heard both the learned counsel including the learned
counsel for the complainant/objector.
The provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 are applicable only against the
husband and not against in-laws. It is clear that there is no
physical cruelty and it also appears that early pregnancy
became the cause of dispute and as per complainant there
was a telephonic call in which husband of the complainant
has sought to terminate the marriage.
There appears to be substance in the submission that
demand of dowry after pronouncing divorce is not possible.
Looking to all these factors, along with belated FIR, a
case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicants, but without making any opinion on merits of the
case, the application filed by the applicants namely; applicant
No.1-Rafique Ahmed, applicant No.2-Raeesa Bi and
applicant No.3-Mohd. Raza are allowed and it is directed that
in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with the
aforesaid crime number, the applicants shall be released on
bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one local

solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Arresting Officer. The applicants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer (IO) on 14.07.2020 and shall assist the
IO in further investigation process and they shall continue to
do so whenever it was required by the IO.
This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to
3 of sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973.
With the aforesaid, this application stands allowed and
is disposed of in above terms.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
J U D G E
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment