Wife Cannot Be Charged With Extortion For Seeking, Being Granted Maintenance By A Competent Court: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be an offence of extortion registered against the wife when she initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance amount to her.A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by a wife seeking to quash the complaint registered by the husband under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109,...
The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be an offence of extortion registered against the wife when she initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance amount to her.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by a wife seeking to quash the complaint registered by the husband under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench said “In the considered view of the Court, 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 husband claimed in the complaint that the wife went on extorting money on one pretext or the other and has filed a false affidavit before the Court for the purpose of getting maintenance and has taken maintenance up to ₹1 crore as of today.
The bench said, “Insofar as the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust is concerned between the husband and the wife for the purpose of payment of 58 maintenance, there cannot be a fact that the husband has lured the wife or the wife has lured the husband into any act that would become an ingredient of Section 420 or 406 of the IPC. Therefore, no offence against the wife or other accused in Crime No.176 of 2023 is made out.”
The court also allowed the petition filed by the husband and quashed the complaint registered by the wife alleging cruelty. It was alleged by the wife that she came across certain messages on the old phone of the petitioner/husband on 15-06-2020 in which there were several messages and WhatsApp chats which were highly intimidating and humiliating and a shocker to her.
Further, it was alleged that the petitioner/husband had a relationship with prostitutes and indulged in unlawful activities and some photographs of her family were also on the phone. The wife construing this to be criminal activities and need to be thoroughly investigated registers the complaint.
The petitioner argued that this is a clear case of abuse of the process of law, as the respondent/wife in her complaint does not utter even a word about cruelty which is necessary under Section 498A of the IPC. All the allegations spring on 15-06-2020, but the complaint is registered on 08-10-2023 without a speck of explanation as to why she kept quiet for three long years.
The wife had opposed the plea submitting that cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC need not be restricted to physical cruelty or torture only. Mental cruelty is also a facet which would come within the ambit of Section 498A of the IPC. Since the matter is still at the stage of investigation, it should not be interfered with.
On going through the complaint the bench held “Not one sentence of cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry, as obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC is even uttered in the complaint. Instances that happened on 15-06-2020 are sought to be projected as allegations on 08-10-2023, clearly 3½ years after the incident and after the talks between the two for settlement of permanent alimony or the custody of children failed.”
Accordingly, it held “Section 498A requires the husband or any member of his family to meet out such cruelty on the wife against a demand. Demand can be of any kind but should touch upon demand for dowry. If the complaint is pitted against ingredients of Section 498A, the unmistakable inference would be that it does not have even an iota of ingredients as necessary under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Following this it allowed both the petitions.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Akash B Shetty for Petitioner.
Additional SPP B.N Jagadeesha for R-1.
Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, FOR Advocates Arpan B Pattanashetti for R2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Case Title: ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3809 OF 2024 (GM – RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.28591 OF 2023.