Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale of the Bombay High Court refused to quash an extortion FIR against a Pune-based, observing that she had entered into a second marriage while her first marriage was still legally subsisting and then sought money from her second husband by misusing legal protections.

Second Marriage and Money Transfers:

In its June 10 order, the judge noted that the woman married her second husband in September 2015 while her first marriage was still continuing. The second husband, who worked in Australia, regularly transferred money to her bank account. The court also recorded that his mother, who lived in Pune, frequently gave the woman gifts and money.

₹25 Lakh Demand:

The judge noted that after the woman left her matrimonial home following the second marriage, she demanded ₹25 lakh when she was confronted about several incidents. According to the court, her uncle and other family members then pressured the second husband and his mother to pay ₹25 lakh to settle the matter. They also allegedly threatened to file false complaints under Section 498A of the IPC if the money was not paid.

Court’s Prima Facie View:

“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.

Admission in Deposition:

After examining the record, Justice Bhonsale said the woman’s actions, along with those of her family members, appeared to be deliberate and motivated by mala fide intentions. The judge pointed out that the woman herself admitted in her deposition that she was still married to her first husband when she contracted her second marriage. This showed that she was aware of the legal consequences of her actions.

Court Rejects Alimony Claim:

“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.

Misuse of Legal Remedies:

The judge further said that the record clearly showed the woman’s dishonest intentions. According to the court, even though she knew her legal position, she continued to misuse different legal remedies to demand money.

The court held:

“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.”

FIR Upheld:

Based on these findings, the court refused to quash the FIR against the woman. The FIR charges her under Sections 384 (extortion), 417 (cheating), 494 (bigamy), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, the court quashed the FIR against her mother and brother.

Case Details: Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 2578 of 2018)