Supreme Court held that the offence of 498A was not made out in this case. It has a checkered history. See the tantrums of knife.

• in the year 1990, she came to know that the appellant had developed illicit relations with one Miss Anna Suja John when he was posted at Trivandrum.
• The appellant started beating her brutally and torturing her mercilessly because of Miss Anna Suja John.
• It was further stated in the complaint that in the year 1991 itself, Miss Anna Suja John came to Nagpur and started staying with the appellant and complainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra at their residence at Nagpur.
• The complainant strongly objected to this and requested the appellant not to have any relationship with Miss Anna Suja John and told her to leave Nagpur. When complainant could not bear the torture, she sought an interview with the then Air Marshal I.G. Krishna, HQ Maintenance Command, Indian Air Force and narrated her plight to him.
• brother of the appellant came to Nagpur and told the complainant that if she files a complaint against her husband, his career would be spoiled. He also promised that Miss Anna Suja John would go back to Kerala.
• When the complainant had gone to Kanpur she saw Miss Anna Suja John with her child residing in the parental house of the appellant at Kanpur.
• The appellant abused the complainant in front of Miss Anna Suja John in filthy language.
• When they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John used to sleep in one room and complainant was asked to sleep in another room. At Kanpur, the appellant told the complainant that he and Miss Anna Suja John are married. While they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John were behaving as husband and wife and going to hotels and various other places together. The same thing continued at Nagpur.
• The complainant tried her best to keep her nineteen years’ old marriage intact.

Now the hubby dear responds to the complaint filed against him

• In the communication it was indicated that Mrs. Roopa Malhotra @ Ruby Basu had filed written statement on 1.10.1992 in Regular Civil Suit  no. 887/1992 filed by the appellant wherein she had stated that she was already married to one D.J. Basu, her husband. The marriage was subsisting at the time when she married the appellant.
• It is to be noted that the said suit was filed by the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, inter alia, for a declaration that defendant Roopa was not his wife as her spouse was living on the date they started living as husband and wife. Suit was decreed on 19.6.1993.
• It was appellant’s stand that in view of the said statement he should not be required to submit his explanation in view of Rule 16(4) of the Rules.
• The appellant submitted that there was no plural marriage as so-called marriage was non existent in the eyes of law. Since there was no valid marriage at the first instance the question of plural marriage did not arise.
• The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and held that the conduct of the appellant was unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force like Air Force.