- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- /
- Madhya Pradesh High Court Monthly...
Madhya Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025
Jayanti Pahwa
13 Sept 2025 10:00 AM IST
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 170 to 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 180Nominal Index:Nain Singh Dhurve v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 170Capri Global Housing Finance Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 171Tanishq Patel v NHAI 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 172H v W 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 173Saurabh Nath Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 174A v B 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 175Laxmikant v...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 170 to 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 180
Nominal Index:
- Nain Singh Dhurve v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 170
- Capri Global Housing Finance Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 171
- Tanishq Patel v NHAI 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 172
- H v W 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 173
- Saurabh Nath Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 174
- A v B 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 175
- Laxmikant v State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 176
- Jitendra Jani v Bhumi Jani 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 177
- N v State of MP 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 178
- Aarav Singh v Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 179
- DK v State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 180
Final Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Nain Singh Dhurve v State of MP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 170
Setting aside the conviction of two men in a 2021 murder case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court remarked that the police officials had implanted a false witness "in their zeal to complete the investigation without maintaining the integrity of investigation".
Remarking on the "dishonest" status of investigation in the State, the court directed MP's Director General of Police to issue appropriate guidelines for proper investigation. It further directed the DGP to lodge a departmental enquiry against the concerned I.O. and other Police Personnel involved in the present case.
Case Name: Capri Global Housing Finance Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 171
A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh, has allowed an appeal and upheld that a district magistrate can re-execute possession orders u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act after illegal re-entry by the borrower. The Court directed the respondent authorities to provide necessary assistance to the petitioner to dispossess the borrower from the mortgaged property.
Case Title: Tanishq Patel v NHAI (W.P. No. 23845 of 2023)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 172
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to monitor the construction and maintenance of the service road near Palda Bridge actively.
The direction was made in a public interest litigation filed by Advocates seeking directions to fix the road signs, remove the trucks parked on both sides of the Palda Bridge, remove speed breakers, as well as to constitute a committee for maintenance of the aforementioned road. The plea further sought directions against NHAI to take accountability for any accidents that might happen due to the poor maintenance of the National Highways.
Case Title: H v W
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 173
Dismissing a husband's appeal for divorce on the ground of cruelty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently praised the wife's conduct as an 'ideal Indian woman' who, despite being deserted for nearly two decades, remained rooted in her dharma as a wife, continued living with her in-laws, and never gave up symbols of her marriage.
Case Title: Saurabh Nath Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh (WP 31146 of 2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 174
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIL against a July 31 Facebook post published by a BJP leader announcing formation of a committee to organize a program 'Har Ghar Tiranga- Tiranga Yatra Avam Vibhajan Vibhishika Diwas' scheduled for August 15.
Case Title: A v B (CRR-6279-2024)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 175
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that husband challenging the maintenance granted to his wife by family court on the ground he is 'ready and willing to keep' her with him, does not constitute a valid offer.
Case Title: Laxmikant v State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-32524-2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 176
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of sending threatening messages to a woman, expressed concerns over the legislative framework that charges the act of sending 'such depraved or perverted messages on social media' under the offences which are bailable in nature.
Case title - JITENDRA JANI VS. SMT. BHUMI JANI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 177
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that a wife's occasional refusal to cohabit with her husband does not amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless there is a persistent denial of conjugal relations.
Law Does Not Prevent An Adult Woman From Living With A Married Man: MP High Court
Case Title: N v State of MP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 178
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that there is no law which prevents an adult woman to live with married man adding that she has the right to choose with whom she wishes to live with.
The court noted that she had 'a mind of her own and the right to make a decision, whether right or wrong, with regard to the person with whom she wants to live', adding that the court cannot "pontificate on matters relating to morality".
Case Title: Aarav Singh v Union of India (WP-13186-2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 179
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the fundamental right to education envisioned under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely by imposing conditions regarding age limit.
It thus directed provisional admission of an 11-year-old student, who was denied admission to Class IX on the grounds of being underage as per the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020.
Case Title: DK v State of Madhya Pradesh (2025:MPHC-JBP:38420)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 180
The Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction passed by the Trial Court under the POCSO Act, noting that the trial court had 'committed several irregularities'.
The court noted that the trial court failed to take 'cognizance of ossification test report available on record and, secondly, it did not pose questions under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to the accused/applicant on the basis of the DNA test report'.