498A Case Filed 3 Years After Separation Abroad: Supreme Court Quashes FIR

The Supreme Court on September 18, 2025, quashed a dowry harassment FIR filed in 2016 by a woman against her former husband, after noting that courts in Australia and Austria had already ruled on the couple’s marital and custody disputes.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal filed by Nitin Ahluwalia, an Australian citizen of Indian origin, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s March 23, 2017, order that had refused to quash the FIR. The complaint had been lodged on December 7, 2016, by his ex-wife, Tina Khanna Ahluwalia, an Austrian citizen.

The high court had earlier observed that since the investigation was at an initial stage, the petition was premature. The Supreme Court disagreed, remarking that such matters are not always “straight cut cases".

"While it is true that elaborate defences and evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced. What renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law. Therefore, the court ought to have appreciated, at least to some extent, the background in which the respondent filed the subject FIR,'' the bench said.

The bench also expressed concern about the long-running hostility between the parents. "We are disappointed in the lack of foresight shown by both parties, particularly when it comes to the well-acknowledged ill effects of continued, strained and hostile relationship between the parents, on a young child. In this case, the child was born in September 2012, and the parents have been in litigation from the time when she was not even a year old to the day this judgment is delivered," the court observed.

The husband’s counsel argued that the FIR disclosed no offence and had been filed to harass him. He said despite orders from Austrian courts directing the return of the child to Australia, the wife not only failed to comply but instead brought the girl to India and lodged the FIR. He contended that no such allegations were ever raised in the proceedings in Austria or Australia, and that the complaint was maliciously filed to take advantage of Indian law.

The wife denied that the FIR was retaliatory, maintaining she approached the police only after mediation attempts failed. She further argued that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and, therefore, decrees of Austrian courts need not be considered. Custody, she said, was a civil matter, while cruelty was a criminal one, and both were distinct.

While examining the appeal, the bench noted that if the complaint were viewed in isolation, the high court’s approach might have been correct. However, the fact that the FIR was filed after the grant of divorce raised questions. Court pointedly asked why, after being separated for nearly three years, the respondent chose that particular time to file a criminal complaint.

Though this is not expressly prohibited by law, it certainly begs the question as to why despite having been separated from the appellant for almost three years to the date, did the respondent consider filing an application with the police at that relevant time, the bench asked. 

To entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour, one by the courts in Austria ordering the respondent to bring the child back to Australia and the other, by the courts in Australia, accepting the appellant’s prayer for grant of divorce, does not appear far-fetched, the bench added.   

"On our own analysis, we find the conduct of the respondent to be questionable,'' the bench said.

Court highlighted that one of the allegations in the complaint was the possibility of child abduction by the appellant, which had not translated into any formal charge. "Even though in the eventual FIR such allegation does not translate into a charge, the mere presence of the statement makes us believe that a picture far from the truth has been painted," it said.

It further noted that the wife had unilaterally removed the child from joint custody, and that the period of alleged cruelty mentioned in her complaint extended beyond the time of marriage. "We may only wonder how that can be," the bench observed.

While acknowledging that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, the court held that this could not justify ignoring decrees of competent foreign courts. "It cannot be disputed that the courts in Austria had jurisdiction. They decided a dispute as per the applicable law. No occasion whatsoever arises for India to apply its standard," it said.

Relying on the precedent in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the court concluded that allowing the FIR to proceed would amount to abuse of process.

The couple had married in Panchkula in 2010 and later moved to Australia, where their daughter was born in 2012. The wife, in June 2013, left for Austria with the child without notice, prompting the husband to initiate custody proceedings in Vienna and divorce proceedings in Australia. After orders in his favour abroad in April 2016, the wife returned to India and filed the dowry harassment FIR in May 2016.

Case Title: Nitin Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab & Anr

Judgment Date: September 18, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra