Supreme Court Imposes Cost Of ₹ 50,000 On Father Who Filed Case For Cheating Against His Specially Abled Child

The bench considered the father’s submissions that the complaint was filed in heat of the moment based upon a wrong legal advice. Therefore, the Court found a sense of repentance on his part.

Consequentially, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan considering the submissions and the fact that the complaint has since been withdrawn well before any cognizance could be taken and that the father was apologetic for the ill-advised act of filing such complaint, observed, “The first respondent has filed an affidavit candidly acknowledging that the subject complaint ought not to have been filed by him against their specially abled child. He states that the complaint was filed in heat of the moment based upon a wrong legal advise. We find a sense of repentance on his part. Equally, we appreciate the sentiments of petitioner no.2, who seems to be right in submitting that respondent no.1 should have been extremely careful before filing a criminal complaint against their specially abled child”.

Additionally, the bench deemed it appropriate to close the proceedings, in the interest of justice, with a direction to the father to pay a cost of ₹ 50,000/-.

Petitioner (mother) and Respondent (father) appeared-in-person.

In the pertinent matter, the first petitioner is a specially abled child, under the care and custody of his mother, petitioner no.2.

The marriage between petitioner no.2 and respondent no.1 was dissolved way back. However, since then there has been a spate of litigation between the parties before the Courts in Chandigarh, Panchkula, Delhi even after dissolution of their marriage.

As per the Court, what added fuel to the fire was the fact that the respondent no.1 filed a criminal complaint under Sections 209, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, impleading both the petitioners as accused.

The petitioner no. 2 came to know about the filing even before the Court could take cognizance of the said complaint. Both the petitioners accordingly sought quashing of that said complaint by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

Meanwhile, the complaint was withdrawn, which was brought to the notice of the High Court, hence the quashing petition was disposed of on March, 2023 as having become infructuous.

Subsequently, the second petitioner moved an application before the High Court to modify the order as she wanted the High Court to go into the very maintainability and bona fide of the complaint against petitioner no.1.

But the High Court did not entertain the said application in light of the fact that the complaint was no longer surviving and had already been withdrawn.

Therefore, the same two orders of the High Court were under challenge before the Apex Court.

Noting the averments, arguments advanced and the factual matrix, the bench disposed of the SLP.

“If there is any litigation pending at the instance of the petitioners before the High Court for the recovery of arrears of maintenance from respondent no.1, we request the High Court to decide such matter expeditiously and preferably within four months”, the bench also observed in the order.

Cause Title: XYZ & Anr. v. ABC