The court ruled that foreign divorce decrees are not valid if parties did not effectively submit to the foreign jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of domestic matrimonial laws.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking setting aside of the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate in Case No. 1353/2019 and quashing of FIR No.109/2019 dated 16.05.2019 at Police Station Greater Kailash under Sections 498A /406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

i. The marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals at New Delhi on 10.02.2012. It is alleged that the petitioner and his family members made various demands of luxury gifts for themselves and their guests at the time of the wedding, which were fulfilled by the family of Respondent No.2. It is alleged that all the wedding functions were organised and paid for by the family of Respondent No.2.

ii. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 was gifted 48 tolas gold and diamond jewellery worth ₹60 lakhs by her family, which she was compelled to hand over to the mother of the petitioner at the pretext of safekeeping. It is alleged that the said jewellery is still with the family of the petitioner.

iii. It is alleged that since the petitioner and Respondent No.2 were going to live in Canada after their wedding, the family of the petitioner demanded ₹20 lakhs from the family of Respondent No.2, stating that Canada was too expensive. It is alleged that the father of Respondent No.2 paid the said amount to the petitioner’s family in cash.

iv. It is alleged that the petitioner and Respondent No.2 left for their honeymoon on 19.02.2012 and returned on 29.02.2012. It is alleged that after returning from the honeymoon, Respondent No.2 met with further demands of cash and jewellery at the hands of the petitioner and his family. It is alleged that on 02.03.2012, the petitioner and his family members asked Respondent No.2 to get US $30,000/- from her father, for a house in Canada and the same was paid by her father.

v. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner and Respondent No.2 left for Canada and started residing there. It is alleged that the petitioner detained the passport of Respondent No.2, which was released to her with the interference of Canadian Police. It is alleged that due to the petitioner’s abnormal behavior he was removed from his job in Canada. However, the petitioner and his family blamed Respondent No.2 for the same, stating that she brought bad luck to their family.

vi. It is alleged that the petitioner would constantly abuse and torture Respondent No.2 in Canada for not bringing enough money as dowry. It is alleged that the petitioner would force Respondent No.2 to do all the household chores and never gave her any money for personal expenses. It is alleged that on 15.06.2012, the petitioner’s mother and brother visited Canada and blamed Respondent No.2 for the petitioner’s bad luck, demanding ₹20 lakhs from her father. It is alleged that when the father of Respondent No.2 refused to pay the same, the petitioner abused him and also Respondent No.2.

vii. It is alleged that on 06.12.2012, when Respondent No.2 returned to Canada from a trip to India, the petitioner did not allow her to enter the house stating that he could not live with her. It is alleged that the petitioner only allowed Respondent No.2 to enter the house when the caretaker of the building threatened to call the police. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 was so mentally traumatised that she attempted to commit suicide on 14.12.2012