The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case alleging cruelty, assault and criminal intimidation against a man who is the seventh ex-husband of the complainant, a woman said to have married nine times.“The circumstances surrounding the institution of the present proceedings, when considered along with allegations in the complaint, lend significance to the petitioner’s contention that the prosecution has been initiated for a collateral purpose,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said in an order dated November 4, allowing a petition filed by Raja Hussain.The woman had registered a complaint against Hussain in 2022 under Indian Penal Code sections related to offences such as cruelty against a married woman, voluntarily causing hurt, insult, and criminal intimidation.Also Read | Bengaluru court accepts woman’s claim of shared life with man, orders Rs 20 lakhWhat both parties claimedSeeking to quash the proceedings, Hussain contended that his ex-wife had a history of multiple marriages, caused rifts in families, filed cases, and then settled them for money. He alleged that the woman, who was 30 years old, had married nine times and followed a similar pattern in each relationship.The woman opposed the plea, saying that the proceedings against Hussain must not be quashed, as there was abundant material against him for having indulged in cruelty over the demand for dowry. She also acknowledged having been married several times in the past.Court notes ‘recurring pattern’The bench, in its order, referred to the matrimonial history of the complainant and said, “It discloses a recurring pattern of marriages, matrimonial discord, institution of criminal proceedings and their eventual culmination in settlements.”However, the court clarified that a person’s matrimonial history, however unusual it may appear, cannot by itself furnish a legal foundation for disbelieving an allegation of criminal wrongdoing.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Can divorce abroad end an Indian marriage? What SC said in bigamy case“The number of marriages contracted by a person cannot, by itself, constitute an indictment of character or furnish a presumption of criminal misconduct. Nor can the institution of criminal proceedings by a woman against her former husbands, without more, render a subsequent complaint unworthy of consideration. Every complaint must stand or fall upon its own allegations and the material supporting them,” the court said.“Past conduct relied upon by the petitioner may provide context, but cannot replace the statutory requirement of examining whether the offences alleged are prima facie disclosed,” the court added.Allowing the petition, the court referred to the chargesheet material and the complaint and held, “The allegations appear to be bald and omnibus, without the specific factual foundation necessary to sustain the prosecution.”