Woman Demanding 'Alimony' From Second Husband Despite Subsistence Of First Marriage Can Be Booked For 'Extortion': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an extortion FIR lodged against a Pune-based woman who entered into a second marriage while her first marriage was subsisting, and demanded alimony from the second husband by misusing the law.Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale in an order pronounced on June 10, noted that the Petitioner performed her second marriage in September 2015 when her first marriage continued to subsist. The judge further noted that the second husband worked in Australia and transferred money to Petitioner's bank account every month and even his mother, who lived in Pune kept giving her gifts and money, who did not live in her matrimonial house post her second marriage. The judge took into account the fact that when Petitioner was confronted on few incidents, she demanded Rs 25 lakhs.Further, it was taken into account that Petitioner's uncle and her family members mounted pressure on the second husband and his mother to pay Rs 25 lakhs alimony and settle the dispute and threatened them of filing false cases under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."Prima facie the offences are made out against Petitioner No.1 in as much as she entered into a second marriage, with knowledge of the first marriage being subsisting and then conveniently claiming or taking a defence that, a demand of alimony from the second husband is permissible and does not amount to a offence of extortion is unacceptable. This kind of conduct is required to be dealt with strictly and with a iron hand. Her conduct and other co-accused prima facie appear to be nothing short of blackmail and extortion. These are clear act of arm twisting and pressure tactics," Justice Bhonsale held. After perusing the facts of the case, the judge held that it would be safe to conclude that the conduct of Petitioner and her family members was 'intentional' and with knowledge and with 'mala fide' intentions. "Petitioner No.1 has in fact in her deposition admitted that, she was married to (first husband) and that she has contracted a second marriage with (second husband), when her first marriage was valid and subsisting. It is clear that, she had knowledge and was aware of the consequences of her act in contracting the second marriage. This being the admitted facts, she now cannot term her conduct of demanding Rs. 25 lacs as a demand of alimony. In my opinion, the argument is preposterous, totally untenable and surprising," Justice Bhonsale observed. The 'dishonest intentions' of Petitioner, the judge said were 'writ large' on record as she after being aware of her own illegal acts and offences committed by her, has gone ahead and misused and abused the provisions of law. "Petitioner No.1 has misused and abused a welfare legislation and used the same as a weapon and means to extract monies. She has invoked all available avenues and filed proceedings under Section 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The Petitioner has also filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against second husband's family. She has also filed a proceeding under Section 376, 328, 363, 384, 506 of the IPC and under the SC/ST Act against her second husband and his friend Chirag Trivedi. Considering these facts it is clear that, the prosecutions initiated by her are motivated, malafide and a belated attempt to create a defence. Her conduct smacks of malafides, personal vendetta and is driven by the motive of wrongful gains," Justice Bhonsale held. With these observations, the judge refused to quash the FIR under sections 384 (extortion), 417 (cheating), 494 (bigamy) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The judge, however, quashed the FIR as against Petitioner's mother and brother. Appearance:Advocates Radhika Samant and Pooja Bhide appeared for the Petitioners. Additional Public Prosecutor SS Kaushik represented the State Advocates Himanshu Nagarkar and Kajal S represented the Complainant. Case Title: Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 2578 of 2018)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Woman Demanding 'Alimony' From Second Husband Despite Subsistence Of First Marriage Can Be Booked For 'Extortion': Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Woman Demanding 'Alimony' From Second Husband Despite Subsistence Of First Marriage Can Be Booked For 'Extortion': Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers