Husband's Plea For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Under Muslim Law No Ground To Quash Wife's Cruelty FIR: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a husband's plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Muslim law cannot by itself be a ground to quash his wife's FIR alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 422]

Dismissing a husband's petition seeking quashing of an FIR for cruelty (Section 498A of the IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal observed that the husband had failed to establish that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to his restitution of conjugal rights proceedings.

It said:

"Merely because husband has filed an application Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights for judicial separation under the Muslim law, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. The filing of such an application does not constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings". 

The counsel for the husband submitted that the couple got married in December 2020 and lived together. One child was born out of their wedlock. However, disputes arose between them since the wife used to consume tobacco. When the husband asked her to stop, she got annoyed and went to her matrimonial home. The husband argued that he filed an application under Muslim law for restitution of conjugal rights. 

The Family Court, through judgment of March 10, 2026, directed the wife to live with the husband. It was argued that despite the said order, the wife did not return. The husband submitted that the FIR against him was a counterblast and contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings would severely prejudice the future of his unmarried sister-in-law and his married sister-in-law. 

The counsel for the Wife argued that she was harassed by the husband, who demanded dowry, due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. She submitted that she was ready and willing to live with the husband. 

The court noted that in the absence of any document, the FIR could not be said to be a counterblast. Further, merely because the husband has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights does not constitute grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings. 

Further, the bench emphasized:

"If wife maintains patience and silence with solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that it was her weakness. On the contrary, it shows her sincerity towards her marital life. If after realizing that her in-laws have gone to such an extent where reconciliation is not possible and then daughter-in-law decides to lodge an FIR complaining about cruelty meted out to her, then it cannot be said that said FIR is a counterblast to the petition for judicial separation under the Muslim law". 

Thus, the court dismissed the husband's petition, noting that there were specific allegations against the husband for dowry demand and cruelty. However, since there were no specific allegations against the sisters-in-law and mother-in-law, the FIR against them was quashed. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Vivek Kumar Pandey 

For State: Deputy Government Advocate Ravindra Shukla 

For Wife: Advocate Mansoori Shakeel Ahmad