Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR filed by woman after divorce for ill-treatment faced during marriage

A division bench of Justices Mangesh S Patil and Shailesh P Brahme last month passed an order in a criminal application by the complainant woman’s ex-husband and his father seeking quashing of FIR against them. The couple got married in October 2022 as per Muslim rights and cohabitated till February 2023, when they dissolved their marital ties by executing Khula-Nama. In May last year, the woman filed a report alleging harassment and fraud by the applicants.

The complainant woman had claimed that her father had spent a huge amount for her marriage and it was performed with all ‘pomp and show.’ She said that at the time of marriage, her father-in-law was hospitalised and everything was looked after by her father.

It was further contended that their marriage could not be consummated as her husband disclosed that he was suffering from highly contagious disease and the ailment was chronic and likely to be fatal and it was not possible to have physical contact.

Shocked by the fraud played by the applicants and harassment caused due to demand of Rs 5 lakh from her, she decided to end marital ties. The woman claimed that while her father extended medical help, the applicants refused the same.

The applicants argued before the court that no offence under Section 498A of IPC can be made out against them under a ‘false’ complaint, as the marital ties between the couple had severed. However, the respondent woman submitted that ‘complicity of the applicants was apparent’ in the case and ill-treatment meted out to her was of the period when marriage was subsisting and the proceedings under the FIR should not be quashed.

“We have no hesitation to hold that a case is made out to proceed against the applicants under Section 498-A of IPC,” the bench held after perusing material on record.

It went on to observe, “Crucial issue raised in this application is as to whether a divorced wife can maintain a complaint for offence under Section 498-A against her ex-husband and his relatives… In the present matter the overt act (demand of dowry and harassment) of the applicants is of the period when marriage was still subsisting.”

“It reveals that the alleged demand of dowry and harassment attributed to the applicants is of a period prior to dissolution of marriage. The allegations for offence under Section 498-A of IPC are not post ‘Khula-Nama’ or post dissolution of marriage,” the bench noted and rejected the plea.