Last Updated:
The Supreme Court noted that the FIR was filed after nearly three years of separation and only after the husband obtained favourable orders abroad
The court also observed that the alleged period of cruelty in the FIR extended beyond the subsistence of marriage, which was untenable. File pic/PTI
The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) filed by an Austrian citizen, Tina Khanna Ahluwalia, against her former husband, an Australian citizen of Indian origin, holding that the complaint was filed as a retaliatory measure after she lost custody and divorce battles in foreign courts.
Recommended Stories
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal, where the appellant challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR lodged in December 2016 at the Women Police Station, SAS Nagar.
The couple married in Panchkula, Haryana, in 2010 and lived in Melbourne, Australia. A daughter was born in 2012. In June 2013, the wife left the matrimonial home with the child for Austria. The husband initiated proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980, before Austrian courts.
The Vienna District Court ordered the child’s return to Australia, holding that the mother had wrongfully removed her. The decision was upheld by the Austrian Supreme Court, which rejected the mother’s argument that the child was socially integrated in Austria and at grave risk if returned. The courts clarified that the order required the child’s return to Australia, not necessarily her custody with the father, and the mother was free to accompany her.
Subsequently, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia granted the husband a divorce on April 1, 2016.
Barely a month later, in May 2016, the wife filed a complaint in India alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The FIR, registered in December 2016, alleged offences between November 2010 and May 2016.
The High Court dismissed the husband’s plea for quashing, noting that the investigation was at an initial stage and allegations could not be brushed aside. The Supreme Court, however, stayed the probe in 2017.
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the FIR was filed after nearly three years of separation and only after the husband obtained favourable orders abroad. The bench observed that the timing and circumstances strongly suggested the complaint was a counterblast to foreign court decrees on custody and divorce.
The court found the wife’s conduct “questionable”, pointing out that despite Austrian court orders, the child had not been returned to Australia. It also noted contradictions in her stance; while claiming integration in Austrian society, she accepted the service of divorce papers in India, undermining her own position.
One of her allegations in the complaint, that the husband might abduct the child, was dismissed as misleading since, in fact, Austrian courts had held that she had unilaterally removed the child in breach of joint custody rights.
The court also observed that the alleged period of cruelty in the FIR extended beyond the subsistence of marriage, which was untenable. Referring to precedents including Digambar v State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the bench held that the allegations lacked the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, which requires intentional acts causing grave injury, coercion for dowry, or abetment to suicide.
The bench concluded that allowing the FIR to proceed would be an abuse of the process of law. “To entertain the possibility that the complaint is nothing but a counterblast… does not appear far-fetched,” the SC remarked, quashing both the FIR and the High Court’s order.
About the Author
Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.
Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi.
September 19, 2025, 18:49 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
