Bombay High Court Refuses to Quash Extortion Case Over 25 Lakh Rupee Alimony Claim
The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an extortion case against a woman accused of demanding Rs 25 lakh from her second husband, ruling that the demand cannot be justified as alimony because her second marriage was legally void. In an order dated June 10, Justice RR Bhonsale at the Bombay High Court in Mumbai established that a prima facie case of extortion, cheating, bigamy, and criminal intimidation was made out against the woman.
While the court allowed the case against the woman to proceed to trial, it quashed the criminal proceedings against her mother and brother. Justice Bhonsale held that the allegations against the two relatives were vague and general.
The legal dispute originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in 2017 by the mother of the second husband. According to the prosecution, the woman married her second husband in September 2015 through a matrimonial website, despite her first marriage still being legally valid and undissolved.
Following the wedding, the second husband, who was employed in Australia, regularly transferred money to the woman. His mother also provided her with gifts and financial assistance. However, the complainant alleged that the woman never stayed at her matrimonial home, demanded Rs 25 lakh after disputes arose, and threatened to implicate the family in false criminal cases if the money was not paid.
During the proceedings, the woman argued that the demand for Rs 25 lakh was a legitimate claim for alimony. Justice Bhonsale rejected this argument, calling it "preposterous, totally untenable and surprising," noting that she entered the second marriage knowing her first marriage was still subsisting.
The judge stated that such conduct amounted to blackmail, extortion, and pressure tactics, which must be dealt with strictly. The court also noted that the woman admitted in her deposition that her first marriage was active during her second wedding, and she had subsequently initiated cases under Section 498A of the IPC and the Domestic Violence Act against her second husband's family.
The court concluded that the woman's actions disclosed offenses under Indian Penal Code Sections 384 (extortion), 417 (cheating), 494 (bigamy), and 506 (criminal intimidation), clearing the path for her trial to continue.
