The High Court was considering an appeal filed by a wife under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order passed by the Second Additional District Judge whereby her application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment passed in the matrimonial proceeding was dismissed.

The Single Bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey held, “In view of the aforesaid legal position, the fact that a decree of divorce has already been passed does not, by itself, preclude the appellant from seeking the relief of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned matrimonial Court is competent to consider such application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the relevant factors contemplated under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”

Advocate Pradeep Kumar Naveria represented the appellant while Advocate Rahul Kumar Tripathi represented the respondent

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that the respondent-husband had already remarried after obtaining the decree of divorce. The appellant wife was not interested in prosecuting the matter insofar as the decree of divorce was concerned but it was her case that the matrimonial Court had not considered the question of alimony in her favour.

The husband raised the contention that if the wife was not challenging the decree of divorce and was seeking only an order for alimony, she may proceed independently before the matrimonial Court.

Reasoning

On perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that the respondent husband instituted the matrimonial proceeding against the appellant under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which culminated in an ex-parte judgment. The appellant had thereafter preferred an application seeking setting aside of the said ex-parte judgment but the same was dismissed by the Court below.

Considering that the wife was not interested in prosecuting the matter insofar as the decree of divorce was concerned and was only seeking an opportunity to pursue her claim for alimony, the Bench found it unnecessary to remit the matter for restoration or further adjudication of the proceedings insofar as the decree of divorce was concerned. The Bench took note of the fact that the question of alimony in favour of the wife was not considered by the matrimonial Court while passing the judgment.

Reference was made to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Patel Dharamshi Premji v. Bai Sakar Kanji (1967) wherein was held that an application seeking the incidental relief of permanent alimony may be made in the main proceeding before or at the time of passing the decree granting substantive relief, or at any time subsequent thereto.

Taking note of the fact that the impugned decree did not provide for alimony, the Bench held that the appellant wife would be at liberty to file an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the matrimonial Court.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:68339)

Click here to read/download Order

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held, “In this case, the forgery was committed out side of the Court. Accordingly, it was not required to conduct preliminary enquiry as per Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C., 1973/corresponding section 379 of BNSS, 2023 and there can be no impediment for the police to register the case.”

“In my view, this is because of the reluctance of the Civil Courts to issue a direction to the police to register a case of forgery or in appropriate cases to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to clarify that in appropriate cases, the Civil Court has got power to issue a direction to a party or to a witness to forward a complaint to the police. This measure alone shall send an appropriate message to the intending wrong doers so that the fraud and forgery could be curtailed.”

Factual Background

The litigants (petitioners and respondents) are real brothers and sisters. The second and third Respondents filed a civil suit claiming declaration of title regarding agricultural land. The first and second Petitioners (defendants), along with the wife and children of the Petitioner, claimed that their father, Shersingh, had executed a will in favor of the second Petitioner, Narendra Singh, in the presence of the third Petitioner, Shivraj Singh and the fourth Petitioner, Dharmendra Singh. A Civil Judge recorded the finding that, after filing the suit, the will was forged. Himmatsingh (first petitioner), gave the land to the second petitioner, Narendra Singh, with the help of their relatives as attesting witnesses (third and fourth petitioners). An order was passed to lodge an FIR against the petitioners with a direction that if any other persons were found involved, they would also be made accused. Accordingly, a case came to be registered under Section 61(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that the Civil Suit was decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and it is settled law that findings rendered in a civil proceeding and findings that are, by the trial Court's own admission, not final on the question of coercion/fraud qua one of the very persons named as an accused cannot form the sole and exclusive foundation for a criminal prosecution, which must independently satisfy the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Reasoning

Considering that forgery was committed outside of the Court, the Bench stated that it was not required to conduct a preliminary enquiry as per Section 340 (1) of the CrPC, and there could be no impediment for the police to register the case.

“Above all, forgery is a fraud and so the power of the Court, to unearth the fraud and to bring to book the culprits shall find no barriers. If the inherent powers by civil Court under Section 151 could not be exercised to such a situation, the phrase "ends of justice" as enumerated in Section 151 will not serve its purpose”, it stated.

The Bench made it clear that in appropriate cases, the Civil Court has the power to issue a direction to a party or to a witness to forward a complaint to the police. Finding no ground for quashing, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Himmat Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:25401)

Click here to read/download Order