Punjab & Haryana HC Flags 'Disturbing Trend' Of NRIs Filing Matrimonial Cases In India For 'Harassment', Says Proxy Litigation Can't Be Allowed

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the cruelty case filed by woman having Australian citizenship against her former Australian husband and in-laws observing that, "disturbing trend where criminal prosecution is initiated in matrimonial disputes in India by foreign nationals, who have voluntarily availed citizenship of another country and are in continuous residence there."

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, “merely for the purpose of harassment, criminal complaints are filed in India. When the matrimonial disputes stand settled by the concerned forum abroad, proxy litigation in India cannot be allowed to be commenced in India to satisfy personal spite.”

The Court ”strongly condemned” such unscrupulous “and unethical practice and is of the stern opinion that the stream of justice must not be allowed to be clogged by ill-intended, vexatious proceedings which further burdens the already overworked Courts.”

The odious act of initiating criminal prosecution to harass hapless relatives residing in India is clearly an atrocious abuse of the process of law, which cannot go unchecked. The sanctity of the judicial process cannot be allowed to be smeared by letting ill-intentioned, resentful litigants to use it as an instrument of oppression, it added.

These observations were made while hearing the plea filed for quashing of FIR filed under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. It was alleged that husband and in-laws of the wife were harassing her for dowry.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners are Australian citizens and have been residing in New South Wales. The wife is also a citizen of Australia and the couple had already obtained a divorce from Australian Court.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the couple is an Australian citizen and had obtained a decree of divorce from the Australian Court.

"Pertinently, the concerned Court has passed an order under Section 79 of the Family Law Act, 1975 (Cth) to address the consequences of the breakdown of the marriage," it added.

Justice Brar highlighted that, "It is baffling that FIR(supra) propped up in India, at the instance of respondent No.2, while the divorce proceedings were underway in Australia, especially in view of the fact that...Kaur had never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage."

The Court opined that allegations "qua harassment in lieu of dowry against the petitioners are omnibus in nature and appear to be coloured by malicious intent."

It further pointed that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A IPC would be three years.

"In the case at hand, the complaint was filed on 22.05.2018. The FIR(supra) states that the incidents of harassment while Kaur was in India started soon after marriage, which took place on 16.01.2011," noted the judge.

Consequently, the Court opined that "the concerned Court would be barred from taking cognizance of the present matter as the prosecution was instituted beyond the period of limitation."

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab and Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mehtab Singh Khaira, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab and another

Click here to read/download the order