Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently quashed summons issued against a "hapless lady" on allegations by her husband that when her marriage with him was subsisting, she entered into a second marriage with another person and a child was also born to them.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Varsha Devi alias Varsha Shukla against the Allahabad High Court's order refusing to quash the summons issued by a Farrukhabad court on a complaint by her husband.

Having gone through the record of the case, the bench said, "The proceedings initiated are indeed malicious."

The appellant's counsel Mona K Rajvanshi contended that the complaint was venomous, vindictive and vengeful and was a counter blast to the various prosecutions initiated by the wife against the husband under Section 498A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

She claimed, the appellant was unceremoniously thrown out of her matrimonial home, for reason only of the exorbitant demand of dowry having not been met, for which, she was also subjected to physical violence.

In desperation, she had to return to her paternal home and was barely eking out her livelihood. She asserted that there was no second marriage nor a child born to the appellant.

Advocate Sudhir Kulshreshtha, appearing for the respondent husband, vigorously asserted that the appellant had, in fact, entered into a second marriage. There were witnesses to the second marriage on whose oral statement the magistrate's court had issued summons.

There is no reason to interfere in the criminal proceedings initiated by the Magistrate at this stage. The second marriage, while the first one was subsisting, if condoned, would send a wrong message to the society, he said.

Going through the police investigation report, the bench noted at the first stage that statements were recorded from the neighbourhood of the parental residence of the appellant, all of whom spoke of the appellant having not entered into a second marriage or given birth to a child; in their knowledge.

"However, surprisingly, on the basis of an entry in a register of the Community Health Centre, Allahganj, a subsequent report was submitted finding a case made out on the complaint. We cannot but notice, from the entry referred to that there is no investigation carried out as to whether the person mentioned therein was in fact the appellant. The police have also not been able to trace out the child or the husband; who form the foundation of the allegations," the bench said.

The court also noted that in an ex parte order of August 17, 2022 of the family court, granting divorce to the respondent on the ground of desertion of his wife; the appellant, it had been categorically held that the husband petitioner therein, though took the identical contention of a second marriage and a child born therein, was not able to establish the same.

"Strangely, in the maintenance case filed, in which the Principal Judge, Family Court has passed an order granting maintenance on August 31, 2022, the husband who was the respondent had not taken a plea of second marriage to resist the claim of maintenance," the bench said.

The court also noted the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 498A, IPC and initiated proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband had also initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant and her parents, including that of dacoity and robbery. One such case of threats levelled and cash looted, ended with the quashing of the summons issued, by the top court.

The appellant had also produced documents to refute the allegation of child bearing; the certificate issued by the medical superintendent where the appellant was employed on contract and the bank statements to establish that in the months of November and December 2021, she had been continuously working, without leave in the CHC and receipt of her salary for the said months; the date of delivery alleged being November 25, 2021.

"We have to reiterate that the proceeding initiated, which is challenged herein is malicious and there is no cause to permit continuance of the same," the bench said.

The court finally set aside the high court order and closed the complaint pending in the court of judicial magistrate, fast track court, Farrukhabad.

Case Title: Varsha Devi Alias Varsha Shukla Vs State of UP & Others