IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 19.08.2025 Pronounced on: 29.10.2025 NITASH GUPTA AND ANR ..... Petitioners VERSUS ANSHITA VIG ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chandan Deep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate, Mr. Kanish Bangia, Advocate for the respondent.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking quashing of the impugned complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, bearing No. DV-110/2023, registered on 01.04.2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, Haryana (Annexure P-11), as well as the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 (Annexure P-12), whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to summon the petitioners in the said proceedings.

Brief facts

2. The brief factual matrix of the instant case is that marriage, being the second one of both, between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 11.05.2022 at Gurugram. The couple stayed at Chandigarh, whereafter they moved to Mumbai. Matrimonial discord ensued between the two owing to temperamental differences, and on 05.01.2023, petitioner No.1/husband filed a complaint against the respondent/wife. An FIR was thereafter lodged by the respondent on 11.02.2023 against petitioner No.2/mother-in-law and against her sister-in-law at Mumbai for alleged trespass and criminal intimidation. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 filed a petition for annulment of marriage at Rae Bareilly, followed by the impugned complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act by the respondent on 31.03.2023. Thereafter, on 06.06.2023, another FIR was lodged by the respondent at Gurugram under Sections 377, 323, 406, 609, 34 and 506 IPC, where Section 377 was later removed for lack of evidence, and Section 498- A was added. A quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the DV complaint was filed before this Court, and an interim stay was granted on 17.10.2023. However, the petition was dismissed on 06.03.2024 on the ground that proceedings under the DV Act are civil in nature, which proposition was later settled by the judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CR-3407-2024. A subsequent petition numbered CR 2645-2024 was filed, which vide order dated on 16.01.2025 was ordered to be renumbered as a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, and interim protection was granted vide order dated 30.01.2025.

Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners

3. The main plank of argument raised by the learned Senior counsel is qua the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent under DV Act. It is submitted that the respondent had earlier solemnised marriage with one Mr. Sumit Mahna on 01.12.2014 at Gurugram, which marriage was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi. The said fact stands admitted in the FIR lodged by the respondent herself against the said Sumit Mahna on 03.05.2018 under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC (Annexure P-4). Subsequently, divorce proceedings were initiated before the Superior Court of Washington, USA, which granted a decree of divorce on 09.07.2018 on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” (Annexure P-6). However, in light of Section 13(c) and (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a foreign decree cannot be deemed conclusive where it is not pronounced on a ground recognized by Indian law or is in breach thereof. Since “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a recognized ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, the said decree is not enforceable in India and, therefore, cannot be treated as valid dissolution of marriage in the eyes of Indian law.

4. It is further submitted that in the proceedings arising out