-
by Admin
16 February 2026 1:47 PM
The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Subash Chandra Sharma of Allahabad High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against an American husband under the Indian Penal Code and the Domestic Violence Act.
In accordance with Sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the crimes allegedly committed outside of India by an Indian national may be investigated and tried in India.
In this case, the couple wed in 2011, but it is alleged that shortly after the wedding, the husband stole her salary and used it to pay off his debts.
In addition, it is alleged that the husband forced his wife to leave her job in India in order to travel to the United States on an H4 visa and work online in the United States, which is not permitted.
In 2016, the wife became pregnant in the United States, but the pregnancy ended in miscarriage because her husband pushed her. When she became pregnant again in 2017, she decided to remain in India.
However, the wife returned to the United States in an attempt to save her marriage, but her husband did not care for her, and when her in-laws arrived, she was required to perform all household chores.
Later, the husband serves her with a divorce notice. The woman returned to the United States to save her marriage, but her husband refused to communicate with her and beat her.
She also claimed that she was not given any money, and that when she was admitted to the hospital in 2019 without funds, hospital staff suggested she return to India.
After returning to India, the wife filed a domestic violence complaint and claimed that her husband had secretly filed for divorce.
The wife claimed that in February 2021, two individuals visited her home and threatened to murder her and her family if she did not retract the complaint.
In contrast, the petitioner's attorney denied the allegations and stated that the petitioner had used his money to purchase a home in Noida for his wife.
He added that the wife was aware of the divorce petition in the United States and that she filed the contested FIR.
In addition, it was stated that the father had filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of the child.
After hearing the arguments, the court determined that the FIR's allegations against the husband constitute a cognizable offence.
According to the court, the allegations of cruelty and the allegations that the husband caused the wife's miscarriage and stole her money are serious allegations.
The court also determined that the allegations of a threat against the wife have merit.
After analysing the nature of the allegations and the case's facts and circumstances, the court determined that the FIR should not be dismissed.
The court also noted that under sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code, crimes allegedly committed outside of India can be tried in India.
Having reached this conclusion, the court dismissed the instant petitions.
D.D:-10 JUNE,2022
Shri Abhishek Shukla Versus State Of U P And 3 Others
