C.No.680/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.[2] Brief facts of this case are that prosecutrix lodged report on 24.01.2017 at Police Station Meghnagar, District Jhabua averting that appellant sexually exploited her for two years in the pretext of marriage.He also gifted her one mobile phone valued Rs.10,000/-.Her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.02.2005 in Baran (Rajasthan) and after marriage she resided with the applicant in his house at Kota (Rajasthan), but the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.Respondent No.1 has no means of earning and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor sons.There he threatened deceased's mother to lodge court case against deceased.Nine or Ten days later, on 21/05/2016 deceased Firoz telephoned her daughter Roshney and applicant No.3 but applicant No. 2 did not let deceased talk with his wife applicant No.3 and daughter Roshni, due to which deceased Firoz committed suicide by consuming poison at his house in Alote.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of charge- sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case No.2130/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, on 09.01.2013 respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore that she had known the applicant since 2009 both liked to each other so they married on 04.07.2012 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore and started living together at Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter, Indore.The respondent No.2 was teacher at that time so she used to come to Satwas.After marriage they lived happily for two months, but from 15.09.2012 her husband started beating and abusing her and also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) and on 07.10.2012 her husband and his family members were going to engage her husband with Usha Rathore, then she informed Usha Rathore that she is the wife of Mukesh and applicant and his family members are trying to get her married to him by fraud.Thereafter Usha Rathore's family refused to do the engagement.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.During investigation it was found that applicant ill treated deceased Firoz.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant before the trial court averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her.After marriage she lived with her husband only for one & half year .Later applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her from there.Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain herself.Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum.But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.They demanded dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty.Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Ishak Kha.Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.1628/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Ishak Kha S/o Rajjak Kha for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, Distt.Ujjain in ST No.6/15 and grant of bail.[2] Appellant No.3 Ishak Kha has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.[3] As per prosecution story, on 25.09.2014, complainant Bhadar Khan and his younger brother Mubarik came to Bargundaseri Badnagar Cattle Haat for selling a cow.At 9.30 a.m., appelland Ishak and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber came there and abused Mubarik.Javed assaulted Mubarik by knife on his throat.When Bhadar Kha tried to rescue him, Ishak and Zuber caught hold Bhadar Kha and Azad inflicted knife blow on his left palm and Javed also beated him by stick.On hearing the hue and cry Mehboob Kha, Mohd. Azhar, Irfan Kha came to rescue them, then accused ran away.On the report of complainant Bhadar Kha, Crime No.403/14 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber for the offence under Section 307, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Badnagar.[4] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of so called eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) are not reliable.Hearing of the appeal will take time, so sentence awarded by the Trial Court be suspended and appellant Ishak be released on bail.[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant Ishak was present at the spot and also took part in the incident.Learned Trial Court after evaluating all the evidence rightly convicted applicant Ishak and prays for rejection.[6] From the statements of eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) it is clear that appellant Ishak was also present on the spot at the time of incident along with other co-accused and took active part in the incident in which Mubarik was murdered and Bhadar Kha (PW-1) also sustained injuries.So we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail to appellant No.3 Ishak.Hence, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Civil Revision No.46/2017 15.03.2017 Shri V.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.None present for the respondent.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.1400037/2016, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1400037/2016 before the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani seeking declaration and injunction with the averment that suit property was purchased by him in the name of his sister late Sardar Bi D/o Dildar Khan on 04.02.1988 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. on which he did some construction.In the year 2012 Khurshid Bi wrongly got her name recorded on the said plot in the Municipal Register and sold that plot by registered sale deed dated 28.02.2012 to applicants No.1 & 2 without any legal right.So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit plot and in alternate plaintiff also sought relief that if learned court finds Sardar Bi owner of suit plot then it be declared that plaintiff is having half share in the suit plot as heir of Sardar Bi and applicants No.1 & 2 also be directed to not to interfere in his possession on suit plot.Although plaintiff also sought other alternative relief, but which is contradictory.So plaintiff is also not entitled for that alternative relief.Plaintiff also did not value the suit property according to value of sale deed, challenged by the plaintiff' in the suit.So suit is rejected.[4] Plaintiff/respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the prayer observing that the objection raised by the applicant cannot be decided without recording evidence.Plaintiff is not a party to that sale deed against which plaintiff sought cancellation.So he is not bound to valued his suit according to value of that sale deed.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent clearly pleaded in his suit that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of Late Sardar Bi.So it is not a case where plaint could be rejected on the ground raised by the applicants at this stage.Hence, the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar wherein learned judge had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 and trolley attached to it seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996( hereinafter referred to as rules).[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garage, on the way, near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR, Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Rule 53 of M.P.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involved in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal had prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against this applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision observing that according to Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for granting vehicle into custody but no intimation was sent by the authority under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules.So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules come into play when the vehicle is seized by the authority mentioned in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but said vehicle was seized by the police.Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that police who seized the said vehicle also sent intimation regarding seizure of that vehicle to the Magistrate.So learned Additional Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's Revision only on the ground that no information was sent by the authority to the concerned Magistrate.[4] Likewise learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also committed mistake in rejecting the application only on the ground that National Green Tribunal had imposed ban on mining activities as National Green Tribunal imposed ban only on mining activities and not on transportation of sand, therefore, transportation of sand does not come under ban imposed by the National Green tribunal.Even otherwise whether said vehicle was carrying illegal sand or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be ascertained without evidence at this stage and shall be decided by the court at the time of judgment of the case.[6] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.[7] It appears from the record that when learned Trial Court rejected the application of applicant charge-sheet had not been filed, but now charge-sheet has been filed so petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of filing of fresh application by the applicant before the Trial Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle in custody the Trial Court will decide that application according to law without taking notice of his earlier order.A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Trial Court for compliance.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1238/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Nitendra Vajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.870/2017, an application to replace the surety gives in the High Court in the matter of Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court's order dated 19.02.2014 applicant's surety was given by Smt. Saroj Singh on her plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.Now, Smt. Saroj wants loan on that property that's why she may be permitted to give surety on commercial shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain in place of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.After due consideration, prayer is allowed.She be permitted to give surety of appellant on shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain instead of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain and C.J.M., Ujjain is directed to permit the surety of appellant Smt. Saroj Singh to replace the property on which she earlier given surety of appellant.But, it is made clear that earlier property of surety only be discharged when CJM is satisfied with the property on which Smt. Saroj Singh wants to give new surety.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) ns Judge M.A.No.2308/2014 15.03.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are avoiding service and they remained ex parte before the lower court and were not interested to contest the claim application.So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be dispensed with.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial court, so IA No.742/2017 is allowed.Service of notice to the respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1202/2014 15.03.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appeal is already admitted, so list the appeal for final hearing in due course.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1723/2013 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file report regarding factum of death of appellant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.846/2012 15.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.558/2015 15.03.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC.No.861/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1608/2015 15.03.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tejulal before this court.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tejulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R. No.80/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of order of Second Appeal.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.484/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file appropriate application regarding appearance of appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.574/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Heard on IA No.4253/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 338 days.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the application.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.648/2016 15.03.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed along with recovery report after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A. No.57/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Harish Pal.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.97/2017 15.03.2017 Ms. Varunika Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded amount within one month.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.99/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for 7 days time to pay process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A. No.2086/2016 15.03.2017 Shri A.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 15.03.2017 Shri P.K.Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after Three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1579/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3255/2016 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016 15.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Arguments heard.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 15.03.2017 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.72/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.194/2017 15.03.2017 Petitioner present in person.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.232/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Four weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1308/2017 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.286/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent filed a Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain seeking declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant null and void, averting that he purchased one Maruti Car through invoice dated 08.01.2014 worth Rs.6,20,438/-.The applicant completed all the formalities of registration and insurance of the vehicle and delivered the car to him.Later on, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had prepared a new invoice dated 08.01.2014 for RTO purpose wherein there was change of Rs.26,998/- from the original invoice.That invoice was prepared for saving the tax and the petitioner had no right to prepare two invoices for one vehicle.So invoice of Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant on 24.08.2015 be declared null and void.The respondent valued his suit at Rs.5,51,232/- and paid a fixed court fees of Rs.1,000/-.[3] During trial of the suit Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court averting that applicant is bound to pay ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of Rs.5,51,232/-.[4] Respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 31.08.2015 rejected the prayer observing that applicant filed the suit only for seeking declaration, so the provisions of Article 17 of Schedule 2 of Court Fees Act are attracted according to which respondent is only bound to pay fix court fees and rejected the applicant's application.Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent seeks a declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void which has money value, so he is bound to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit.Respondent is not the party of that invoice, therefore, he is not bound pay ad valorem court fee on the suit value.[5] Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others V/s Awadh Narayan and others reported in I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2454 held that, Court Fees Act (7) of 1870, 7 (iv) C and Article 17 Schedule II -- If plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simpliciter from the court.In the instant case also Plaintiff neither executed nor is a signatory to the invoice which he wants to be declared null and void and claimed only the relief of declaration, So Plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee.Learned trial did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer.So the revision has no force.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.368/2014, whereby he rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from respondent.Since then she has been living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself, while respondent runs business of selling cloths and earns Rs.30,000/- per month and able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause.So, respondent be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant.Respondent in his reply denied the all allegations and averted that he and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and respondent does not drink wine.Applicant herself threatened respondent to implicate him in false case as she did not want to live in Biaora.so she herself left respondent's house voluntarily without any sufficient cause and is living with her parents.Respondent tried to take her back but she refused.Applicant does sewing work and is able to maintain herself.On the other hand, respondent is an employee in a cloth shop and only earns Rs.2,500/- per month and is unable to maintain the applicant and pray for rejection.Learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties rejected the application observing that since applicant has been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get maintenance.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty and owing to their ill-behaviour applicant was forced to live separately from the respondent.Learned trial court without appreciating the evidence only on the basis of some minor contradictions mistakenly disbelieving the statement of applicant and his Father Hari Om (PW-2) and wrongly assuming that applicant voluntarily lived separately from respondent rejected applicant's prayer.He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.As far as trial court's finding that the applicant has no sufficient reason to live separately from respondent is concerned, although applicant had deposed that respondent's behaviour became bad with her after one and half months of marriage and that he used to beat her for dowry besides her father Hari Om (PW-2) also deposed that behaviour of respondent and his family members turned bad with applicant after one year of marriage and they demanded dowry and used to beat her and tell her that her father had not given them any cash at the time of marriage and demanded Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand due to which he brought his daughter back from her matrimonial house and that she has been living with him for the past two years during which respondent never came to take her back.But Applicant averted in the plaint that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 03.04.2012 and that he expelled her from his house one year back from the date of filing of application i.e. 15.04.2014, which shows that applicant is living separately from 15.04.2013 meaning thereby that applicant lived with respondent only from 03.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 i.e. 1 year 12 days, while applicant herself averted in her application that behaviour of respondent and his family members was good with her upto one year from her marriage.So the statements of applicant and her father Hari Om regarding demand of dowry and ill-behavior of respondent and his family members becomes doubtful.Even regarding harassment and demand of dowry the statement of applicant and her father is contradictory.Applicant stated that respondent and his family members started torturing her only after 1 or 2 months of her marriage, while applicant's father stated that respondent started torturing his daughter after one year of marriage.Likewise Hari Om (PW-2) stated that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, while in the application it is mentioned that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and one Car.Applicant also stated that she does not remember the year or month or day her husband beated her.She filled report against respondent one year after returning from her parents' house.If respondent had demanded dowry and used to beat her and expelled her from his house after beating then she would have lodged the report of incident soon after the incident.So statements of applicant and her father Hari Om (PW2) that respondent and his family members used to beat her and demanded dowry are do not appear to be correct.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.R.No.313/2015 after two weeks.R.No.1510/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet and argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.A.No.554/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge n