The Supreme Court quashed a 498A FIR filed three years after separation abroad, ruling the dowry harassment case an abuse of process amid custody disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on September 18, 2025, of India delivered an important judgment in a matrimonial dispute spanning multiple jurisdictions, ultimately quashing a dowry harassment FIR filed nearly a decade earlier.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal filed by Nitin Ahluwalia, an Australian citizen of Indian origin, against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal in 2017 to quash the FIR lodged by his ex-wife, Tina Khanna Ahluwalia, an Austrian citizen.
Background of the Case
The couple married in Panchkula in 2010 and later moved to Australia. Their daughter was born in 2012. However, marital discord soon followed. In June 2013, the wife left for Austria with the child without notice. This triggered custody proceedings in Vienna and divorce proceedings in Australia.
By April 2016, both Austrian and Australian courts ruled in the husband’s favour; Austrian courts directed the return of the child to Australia, while Australian courts granted him a divorce. Soon after, in December 2016, the wife filed a dowry harassment FIR in India, alleging cruelty and child abduction.
The Supreme Court’s Observations
The apex court disagreed with the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s mechanical approach of dismissing the husband’s plea at the initial stage of investigation. The bench stressed that judicial discretion must account for the background and timing of the complaint:
“While it is true that elaborate defences and evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced. What renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law,”
the bench observed.
The court noted that the FIR was filed three years after the separation and only after foreign courts ruled in the husband’s favour. This raised suspicion of the complaint being a counterblast.
“On our own analysis, we find the conduct of the respondent to be questionable,”
the court said.
One allegation in the complaint suggested possible child abduction, which never translated into a charge. The court remarked:
“Even though in the eventual FIR such allegation does not translate into a charge, the mere presence of the statement makes us believe that a picture far from the truth has been painted.”
The wife’s complaint extended allegations of cruelty beyond the subsistence of marriage, which the court found untenable.
“We may only wonder how that can be,”
it added.
The court also expressed disappointment over the long-running hostility, stating:
“We are disappointed in the lack of foresight shown by both parties, particularly when it comes to the well-acknowledged ill effects of continued, strained and hostile relationship between the parents, on a young child.”
While the wife argued that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, the bench clarified that this does not allow Indian courts to ignore decrees of competent foreign courts.
“It cannot be disputed that the courts in Austria had jurisdiction. They decided a dispute as per the applicable law. No occasion whatsoever arises for India to apply its standard,”
the court held.
Relying on the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
ALSO READ: Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Rejects Varavara Rao’s Plea to Shift to Hyderabad
Case Title:
Nitin Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2020
Read Judgment:
