Rs 17 crore, Innova demand: Delhi High Court denies full relief to US doctor in marital case

The court observed that the wife’s allegations were specific and revealed a preliminary case of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. (AI-generated image)

The Delhi High Court has partly quashed criminal proceedings against a US-based medical practitioner in a marital dispute, holding that the allegations of criminal breach of trust were not supported. However, it found the wife’s allegations of cruelty to be specific enough and refused to quash proceedings in this regard against the husband and his relatives.

Justice Madhu Jain said these allegations, if accepted at face value, appeared to reveal a case of cruelty and harassment. “The woman has specifically alleged repeated insults and abuse, demands for an Innova vehicle and money, payment of Rs 7 lakh to the petitioner’s brother, a demand of approximately Rs 16–17 crore for the purchase of land for further establishment of a hospital for the petitioner, and acts of physical and sexual cruelty,” the court said on September 16.

However, regarding the allegation of criminal breach of trust in connection with the jewellery that was allegedly not returned to the wife, the court found that the complaint did not claim that her jewellery was entrusted to the husband. It specifically stated that it was handed over to his sister-in-law, and there was no allegation that it later came into the husband’s control.

The trial court will consider, in accordance with the law, the allegations regarding cruelty towards the wife.

US-based doctor married in 2007

The man, a medical practitioner, has been residing in the US since 1995. He got married on October 16, 2007. The couple had no children and lived separately after the marriage, with the man returning to the US while his wife remained in India.

Justice Madhu Jain held that the US court’s annulment decree, visa records, etc, did not conclusively rule out the wife’s allegations.

They later pursued a spousal visa for the wife, but the US Embassy declined the visa in 2010. The husband then initiated annulment proceedings in a Missouri court, which annulled the marriage in January 2015 on the ground of fraud after recording findings relating to the woman’s criminal record and her inability to enter the US. He also filed matrimonial proceedings before a Delhi family court in 2018, which were later withdrawn.

In February 2019, the wife approached the women’s cell alleging matrimonial cruelty, demands for cash and a vehicle, demand of around Rs 16–17 crore for purchasing land and establishing a hospital, and non-return of jewellery. Based on her complaint, the police registered an FIR in 2019 over demand of dowry.

Story continues below this ad

After investigation, the police filed a final report in April 2022, sending the man for trial. He then approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings. The case was referred for mediation in 2024, but it ended without settlement.

Wife’s allegations specific: Court

The court observed that the wife’s allegations were specific and not vague. She had alleged repeated abuse, demands for an Innova vehicle and money, a demand of around Rs 16–17 crore for land and a hospital, and acts of physical and sexual cruelty.

The court said these allegations, if accepted at face value for the limited purpose of the quashing proceedings, revealed a preliminary case of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A of the IPC. Whether the allegations could ultimately be proved was for the trial court to decide.

It held that the US court’s annulment decree, visa records and communications with immigration lawyers did not conclusively rule out the wife’s allegations.

Story continues below this ad

On time limitation, the court noted that Section 498A is a continuing offence, with each alleged act of cruelty providing a fresh starting point for limitation. Although the alleged last acts of cruelty were in 2012 and the FIR came later, the court said limitation could not automatically be used to quash the case because periods of the husband’s absence from India may have to be excluded.

The court, therefore, held that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust were absent against the husband and proceedings in this regard could not be sustained. It also clarified that offence-wise, a prosecution can be quashed in part.

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More