Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a wife seeking and receiving maintenance through legal proceedings cannot be charged with extortion.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed complaints filed by both the husband and wife, holding that maintenance proceedings are legitimate and do not amount to criminal offences. The court observed: “there cannot be an offence of extortion when the wife initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance. Those are legal proceedings, pursuant to which the husband is legally bound to pay, unless it is altered or modified by the superior Court.”

The case originated from a dispute between a married couple who tied the knot in 2007 and had two children. Their relationship turned contentious after the husband alleged that his wife was in a relationship with another man, leading to their separation in 2020. The wife moved to Bengaluru with their children and later initiated multiple court proceedings against the husband, including a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty, an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation, and a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act.

The husband, in turn, accused his wife of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and extortion, alleging that she filed false affidavits to obtain maintenance and had received nearly ₹1 crore from him. He also filed a complaint against his wife’s ex-boyfriend and mother, citing offences under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384, and 34 IPC. The husband also contended that his wife had misused legal provisions to extort money and defamed him through public disclosures of their disputes. He further argued that the delay of three and a half years after the alleged incidents in filing the Section 498A complaint by the wife was a clear indication of abuse of process.

On the contrary, the wife defended her maintenance claims, asserting that they were legally justified and could not be equated with extortion. She further argued that cruelty under Section 498A IPC was not limited to physical abuse but also encompassed mental cruelty, which she claimed to have suffered at the hands of her husband.

With regards the allegations under Section 498A IPC, the court ruled that the wife's complaint did not establish a prima facie case of cruelty, as there was no mention of dowry-related harassment, which is a necessary element under the provision. It noted that the alleged incidents occurred in 2020, but the complaint was filed only in 2023, after negotiations regarding alimony and child custody failed. The court observed that such a delay, without any justification, raised doubts about the genuineness of the claims. Accordingly, it quashed the 498A proceedings against the husband, stating that “permitting further proceedings against the husband would become an abuse of the process of law and putting a premium on the litigative persistence and arm-twisting tactics of the wife.”

However, the court dismissed the husband's allegations of extortion and cheating, ruling that maintenance proceedings are legal in nature, and once a competent court grants maintenance, the husband is legally bound to comply with the said order, unless it is overturned by a superior court. Finding that no offence is made out against the wife or other accused, the court quashed the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.

 

Cause Title: ABC v. State of Karnataka & Others [WP No. 3809 of 2024 (GM-RES) c/w WP No. 28591 of 2023]

Appearance: Petitioners’ Counsel: Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta for Akash B. Shetty; Respondents' Counsel: Additional SPP B.N. Jagadeesha for R-1, Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari for Advocates Arpan B. Pattanashetti for R-2