Concealing First Marriage & Demanding Money From Second Husband Amounts to Blackmail and Extortion Bombay High Court Refuses Quashing
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsCan a demand for money by a wife be treated as extortion? The Bombay High Court says yes if the wife concealed a subsisting first marriage, declared herself unmarried on a matrimonial platform, and then leveraged criminal complaints to extract Rs. 25 lakh. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale called the demand "preposterous" and refused to quash the FIR against her. Title: Concealing First Marriage and Demanding Money From Second Husband Is Blackmail and Extortion, Not Alimony — Bombay High Court Refuses Quashing Case Name: Mrs. Swati Raosaheb More (Swati Sunny Dimber) & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [popularly reported as Nilesh R. Kothari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.] Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2578 of 2018 Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay Judge: Hon'ble Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale Judgment Date: 10 June 2026 Citation: 2026 BHC (Cri.) [as reported] ABSTRACT The Bombay High Court, in a strongly worded judgment delivered by Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, refused to quash the First Information Report and charge sheet against a woman accused of concealing her subsisting first marriage, declaring herself unmarried on a matrimonial platform, entering into a bigamous second marriage, and thereafter demanding Rs. 25 lakh from the second husband while threatening to destroy his career and lodge criminal cases against him and his family. The Court held that such conduct constitutes a prima facie case of extortion and blackmail under Sections 383, 384, 494, and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that welfare legislation cannot be misused as a weapon for wrongful monetary gain. However, the Court quashed the proceedings against the woman's mother and brother, finding only vague and general allegations against them. This judgment reinforces the principle that the inherent power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not be exercised where the material on record discloses a cognizable offence requiring full trial. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction — Why This Judgment Matters Factual Background and Chronology Procedural History and the Quashing Application Issues Before the Court Contentions of the Petitioners Contentions of the Respondent-Complainant Court's Reasoning, Analysis, and Key Observations Conclusion, Disposition, and Broader Implications INTRODUCTION — WHY THIS JUDGMENT MATTERS The intersection of matrimonial disputes, bigamy, and criminal law has long troubled Indian courts. One recurring challenge is distinguishing between legitimate maintenance claims by spouses and illegitimate monetary demands that cross into criminal extortion. This judgment squarely confronts that challenge. In an era when matrimonial portals facilitate cross-city and even cross-country marriages, the concealment of a subsisting prior marriage — followed by monetary demands backed by threats of criminal prosecution — presents a unique species of fraud that the law must address. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale's decision is significant because it refuses to allow the label of "alimony" or "maintenance" to sanitize what is, on the face of the record, a demand accompanied by fear-inducing threats. The judgment draws a clear line: a person who enters a marriage by misrepresenting their marital status and then leverages the machinery of welfare legislation to extract money cannot claim the protection of those very welfare laws. The Court's observations that such conduct "smacks of malafides, personal vendetta and is driven by the motive of wrongful gains" mark this decision as an important precedent for cases involving misuse of matrimonial remedies. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY The complainant in the underlying FIR was the mother of the second husband, Nilesh R. Kothari. She alleged that the first petitioner, Swati Raosaheb More, had registered herself on Bharat Matrimony in January 2015 as a "spinster" — a single, never-married woman. Based on this representation, the Kothari family entered into negotiations and the marriage was solemnized on 26 September 2015. Four days later, on 30 September 2015, the marriage registration application was submitted, and Swati again declared her marital status as "unmarried." The reality, however, was starkly different. Swati had been married in 2004 to her first husband. By 2007, the couple had separated, and Swati had already initiated proceedings under Section 498A IPC against her first husband's family. In 2009, a Family Court awarded her maintenance of Rs. 700 per month from the first husband under Section 125 CrPC. Crucially, no decree of divorce had been passed dissolving the first marriage at the time of the second marriage. The first marriage remained subsisting in the eyes of law. After the second marriage, disputes arose. The complainant alleged that Swati demanded Rs. 25 lakh from Nilesh while he was working in Australia, threatening to ruin his career, get his visa cancelled, and lodge multiple