Criminal Petition No. 5858 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5858 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. VIGNESH C N S/O NARASARAJU C AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.117 NANDINI LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE NEAR VASAVI SHANTHIDHAMA ASHRAMA AALANAHALLI POST MYSURU-570 028 (BY SRI. DEVAIAH I S., ADV.) AND: MS. SUNITHA A V D/O VASUDEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 36TH A CROSS BEHIND HEAD POST OFFICE 11TH A MAIN JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 041 Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court Of Karnatka …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M. S. VARADARAJAN, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.569/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL.FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.569/2023, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The respondent/wife filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioner fraudulently obtained a consent divorce and has neglected to maintain her, claiming she is entitled to maintenance as provided under the explanation to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 04.06.2014 in Bengaluru. After the marriage, they resided in Sweden. The respondent initiated divorce proceedings before the jurisdictional court in Sweden. The petitioner appeared in those proceedings and filed objections, stating that although he consented to the divorce, he objected to sharing the residence with the respondent. The respondent subsequently replied, stating that she agreed to withdraw her claim for sharing the residence and requested the court to proceed with dissolving the marriage. Based on the respondent’s reply, the jurisdictional court in Sweden, by order dated 22.03.2018, dissolved the marriage - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 between the petitioner and the respondent by mutual consent. 3. After returning to India, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that the decree of divorce was obtained fraudulently. Subsequently, in 2021, the respondent also filed a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, registered as Crime No.100/2021. The petitioner challenged the registration of the crime before this Court in Crl.P.No.6654/2021, and by order dated 03.11.2023, this Court granted a stay on all further proceedings related to the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. Given these circumstances, the respondent withdrew the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 22.02.2023. Thereafter, suppressing the complaint registered under Section 498-A of IPC and the withdrawal of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 12.07.2023, which is now being challenged in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither before the jurisdictional court in Sweden, nor in the proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC, nor in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 were there any allegations against the petitioner for neglecting to maintain the respondent. It is contended that the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed only to harass the petitioner, with an intent to wreak vengeance, and that there is no valid cause for filing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the decree of divorce was obtained fraudulently and that the respondent had not relinquished her claim for maintenance during those proceedings. Therefore, the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable as per the explanation to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302, Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and Anr Vs State of Gujarat, and AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 4748, Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee Vs The State Of West Bengal. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 7. In the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the respondent has alleged that the divorce decree was obtained fraudulently. These same allegations were made against the petitioner in the complaint filed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 under Section 498-A of IPC, which this Court considered in Crl.P.No.6654/2021. By order dated 03.11.2023, this Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC, observing that it was a clear case where the Court’s jurisdiction should be exercised to quash a wrongful abuse of the process of law initiated by the respondent. 8. In the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the respondent has deliberately suppressed material facts, particularly the case registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, which was stayed by this Court in the aforementioned petition. Furthermore, the respondent had previously filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Notably, in that petition, there were no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner suggesting that he had neglected to maintain the respondent. 9. Additionally, the respondent withdrew the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without reserving any liberty to file a subsequent petition seeking maintenance. It is pertinent to note that Explanation to Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C cannot be resorted to if the wife is living separately by mutual - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 consent. While the respondent has attempted to rely on this provision, the facts of the case indicate otherwise. 10. By actively participating in the proceedings before the jurisdictional court in Sweden and consenting to the dissolution of marriage without raising any claim for maintenance or asserting neglect by the petitioner, the respondent has effectively, if not expressly, impliedly waived or relinquished her claim to maintenance from the petitioner. Moreover, throughout the prior proceedings, including those under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the complaint filed under Section 498-A of IPC, no allegations were made against the petitioner for having neglected or refused to maintain the respondent. 11. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable and do not apply to the specific facts and circumstances of this case. The cases cited involve scenarios where claims for maintenance were made based on ongoing neglect or refusal to provide support, which is not the situation here. 12. Furthermore, the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed nearly four years after the dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent, as ordered by the jurisdictional court in Sweden. The considerable delay in filing this petition, without any valid explanation or - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13518 CRL.P No. 5858 of 2024 assertion of ongoing neglect, further establishes the motive of the respondent to harass the petition by filing one or other frivolous cases. 13. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the respondent’s failure to raise any claim for maintenance during the previous proceedings and the considerable delay in filing the present petition, it is evident that the respondent has not made out a prima facie case for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the continuation of these proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process. 14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.569/2023 pending on the file of Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. Pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27