When an estranged wife in Canada moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court over alleged harassment in India, little did she know that her plea would end up spotlighting a far larger concern — the growing tendency of overseas litigants to invoke the country’s judicial process without accountability.The court found her petition to be a “bundle of falsehoods, malice and abuse of the process of law”. It asserted that such notions were required to be addressed firmly and dismissed the case with Rs 5 lakh costs.“The practice of filing frivolous petitions where the NRIs residing abroad under the notion that the judicial process of India can be invoked without any accountability, has become rampant. This notion must be addressed firmly,” Justice Alok Jain of the high court asserted.Justice Jain asserted that she abused the process of law, made false and vague allegations and attempted to mislead the court. As such, it was a fit case where the petition deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs.Justice Jain said, “It is high time that citizens of the country, including those residing abroad, are made aware that the laws of this country cannot be abused or misused for personal gain under the pretext of filing petitions from abroad. Such acts not only waste the precious time of the court but also deplete the resources of the country, which must be compensated.”It was directed to deposit the amount within 15 days, failing which appropriate steps for recovery would be taken, including impleading the Union of India as a party and “seeking the deportation of the petitioner for her acts and conduct”.The matter was placed before Justice Jain after the divorced wife moved a petition seeking protection of life and personal liberty for herself and family from alleged actions of the husband and another respondent.Her counsel, during the hearing, argued that the respondents initiated false complaints in India after the breakdown of marriage in Canada, leading to harassment of her family through repeated police summon.Justice Jain, however, noted that the counsel was “unable to satisfactorily answer/explain the queries of the court with regard to any specific date, time or place of alleged harassment or threat”.The state, on the other hand, submitted that a complaint had indeed been received and the petitioner’s relatives were only called to provide information, with a cancellation report under preparation.Calling it a “peculiar case”, the Bench noted that the petition had been filed by the Canada-based petitioner through her mother holding power of attorney in India, and despite a divorce granted abroad, she continued to describe herself as the wife of the respondent.