'Wife cannot be charged with extortion for seeking maintenance', rules Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife cannot be charged with extortion for seeking maintenance granted by a court. The court emphasized that such legal proceedings are not criminal and cannot be mistaken for extortion. It also dismissed the wife's cruelty complaint against her husband.
FollowIn a landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife cannot be charged with extortion simply for seeking and being granted maintenance by a competent court. The bench, led by Justice M Nagaprasanna, made this declaration while quashing a complaint filed by a husband under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The husband had accused his wife of extorting money from him by filing false allegations and submitting a misleading affidavit to secure maintenance. He claimed that the wife had already received over INR 1 crore in maintenance payments. However, the High Court disagreed with the husband's claims, stating that the legal proceedings initiated by the wife were legitimate, as they were approved by the court. The court emphasized that seeking maintenance is a legal right of the wife and should not be mistaken for extortion.
Forcing spouse to convert in inter-faith marriage amounts to mental cruelty, violates right to life: Madras HC
The court’s ruling was based on the fact that the husband was legally bound to pay maintenance unless a superior court modified or altered the order. The bench made it clear that such proceedings, once sanctioned by the court, cannot be construed as an offence of extortion.
Additionally, the High Court addressed a separate petition filed by the husband, seeking to quash a complaint lodged by the wife accusing him of cruelty. The court ruled in favor of the husband, dismissing the wife's complaint.
The bench stated, "In our view, there can't be extortion when a wife starts a maintenance case and the court grants it. These are legal proceedings, and the husband must pay unless a higher court changes the decision."
Madras HC rejects Netflix India’s plea to dismiss case filed by Dhanush against Nayanthara's documentary
The husband had claimed that his wife was extorting money by filing a false affidavit, despite having already received a substantial amount in maintenance. He also alleged that the wife accused him of having an illicit relationship with prostitutes and indulging in unlawful activities, based on photographs of his family found on his phone. The husband argued that the wife’s complaint was an abuse of legal processes, as she had not mentioned cruelty, which is required under Section 498A of the IPC. Furthermore, he pointed out that the wife had waited three years before filing the complaint, without providing an explanation for the delay.
In response, the wife argued that cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC includes mental cruelty, not just physical torture. She contended that since the matter was still under investigation, the court should not intervene at this stage.
subscribe to Asianet Newsable WhatsApp channel by clicking here.
