Bombay HC Refuses To Quash Extortion Plea Of Woman Who Wed Despite Existing First Marriage, Demanded ₹25 Lakh

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an extortion case against a woman accused of demanding Rs25 lakh from her second husband after marrying him despite her first marriage being legally subsisting, holding that such a demand could not be justified as a claim for alimony.

Proceedings Quashed Against Woman's Mother and Brother Due to Vague Allegations

However, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the woman's mother and brother, holding that the allegations against them were vague and general.

Justice RR Bhonsale in an order dated June 10 held that a prima facie case was made out against the woman, observing that she could not justify the demand of Rs25 lakh as "alimony" from her second husband when the marriage itself was void because her first marriage had not been dissolved.

Woman Married Through Matrimonial Site in 2015 While First Marriage Valid

The case arose from an FIR lodged in 2017 by the second husband's mother. According to the prosecution, the woman married in September 2015 through a matrimonial website while her first marriage remained valid. After the marriage, the second husband, who was employed in Australia, regularly transferred money to her, while his mother also gave her gifts and financial assistance.

The complainant alleged that the woman never stayed at her matrimonial home, demanded Rs25 lakh after disputes arose, and, along with her relatives, threatened to implicate the husband and his family in false criminal cases unless they paid the money.

Court Calls Alimony Argument 'Preposterous, Untenable and Surprising

Rejecting the woman's argument that the demand amounted to a legitimate claim for alimony, Justice Bhonsale observed, "The petitioner entered into a second marriage with knowledge of the first marriage being subsisting and then conveniently claimed that demanding alimony from the second husband would not amount to extortion. This argument is preposterous, totally untenable and surprising."

The court further said, "This kind of conduct is required to be dealt with strictly and with an iron hand. The conduct... appears to be nothing short of blackmail and extortion. These are clear acts of arm-twisting and pressure tactics."

The judge also noted that the woman had admitted during her deposition that her first marriage was still subsisting when she married for the second time. The court observed that after becoming aware of her own illegal acts, she allegedly misused criminal law by initiating proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the Domestic Violence Act and other criminal provisions against her second husband and his family.

Holding that the allegations against the woman disclosed offences under Sections 384 (extortion), 417 (cheating), 494 (bigamy) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, the court refused to quash the FIR against her while granting relief to her mother and brother.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/