BETA BETI Bachao Abhiyan

13/10/2025

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in an order passed on Wednesday, said, “The woman’s complaint, when considered as a whole, does not reflect any act of harassment or cruelty.”

The FIR was lodged against the deceased’s parents and sister for the alleged offences of cruelty inflicted on the woman and criminal breach of trust. A plea was filed by the accused seeking the quashing of the FIR lodged against them in 2016.

The couple got married in March 2016 and started living in Pune. The woman’s in-laws had claimed that soon thereafter, differences arose between the couple, and the man went into depression and was in a disturbed and frustrated state.

The petitioners had claimed that they were allegedly terrorised by the woman’s parents, who threatened to implicate their entire family in a false and frivolous case of dowry and domestic violence.

The petitioners told the court that the man was “mentally and physically harassed” by the unwarranted acts and threatened by his wife and her parents, and died by su***de on April 13, 2016.

The court, in its verdict, said it was an unfortunate case where the marriage did not survive even for 40 days, and the husband died by su***de, resulting in sour relations followed by ugly litigation.

“It is evidently a case of vague allegations and a clear case of abuse of power, and it is not in the interest of justice if the present proceedings are permitted to be continued,” the court said.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE RISE IN FALSE CASES FILED BY WOMEN??

21/09/2025

21/09/2025

▪In Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Anr., Supreme Court quashed the FIR filed by the wife against her husband under Section 498A IPC. The Court observed that the High Court erred in mechanically dismissing the husband’s quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC without considering the background in which the FIR was lodged.

▪Court observed “the respondent filed the complaint after the grant of divorce, a month later… To entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour… does not appear far-fetched.”

▪The appellant (husband), an Australian citizen of Indian origin, married the respondent (wife), an Austrian citizen, in 2010. Their daughter was born in 2012. In June 2013, the respondent left the matrimonial home in Australia with the child and moved to Austria. Thereafter, multiple proceedings were initiated under The Hague Convention, 1980, and foreign courts, including those in Austria, directed the respondent to return the child to Australia, but she defied those orders.

▪In April 2016, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia granted divorce to the appellant on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Just a month later, in May 2016, the respondent lodged a police complaint in Punjab alleging dowry harassment and cruelty during the marriage. On this basis, an FIR was registered on 07.12.2016 u/s 498A IPC at Women Police Station, SAS Nagar.

▪The appellant challenged the FIR before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, but his petition was dismissed on the ground that “the matter is at the very initial stage of investigation” and that it was “too premature a stage” to quash the FIR. The High Court emphasized that since allegations had been raised, investigation must proceed.

▪Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the FIR was a retaliatory measure filed after losing custody and divorce cases abroad, and that it was an abuse of process. The respondent, on the other hand, denied retaliation and claimed that cruelty and child custody are distinct issues. She also pointed out that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.

▪Court also noted the timing of the FIR and found contradictions in the respondent’s conduct, particularly her failure to comply with Austrian court orders, and held that the FIR extended allegations of cruelty even beyond the period of marriage, which was untenable.

▪Relying on Digambar v. State of Maharashtra and the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, Court concluded that the case fell within parameters where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

▪Accordingly, SC set aside the Punjab & Haryana HC’s order and quashed the FIR filed by the wife.