Bengaluru: Woman gets arrested for allegedly spending ₹28 lakh on online shopping to buy over 2,500 products
Cybercrime police have registered a case against a woman for allegedly spending nearly ₹28 lakh on online shopping. The purchases were made from her husband’s account, The Hindu reported.
The complaint was filed by her husband, a Bengaluru-based doctor. He said that his wife, also a doctor, married him in March 2023. Between June 2023 and November 2024, she allegedly used his tablet to access his account and buy over 2,500 products worth ₹28,74,545.42, mostly for her parents.
The doctor claims this was done systematically, without his knowledge. According to him, it was part of a conspiracy to cheat him by diverting funds for her family’s benefit, the publication added.
Police have booked the woman and her parents under the Information Technology Act and Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 318 (cheating) and 319 (impersonation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Investigations are underway to verify the transactions and establish the extent of her involvement.
If the charges are proven, the woman and her parents could face serious punishment. Under the IT Act, this may mean up to 3 years in jail, fines upto ₹1 lakh, or both.
Under BNS, criminal conspiracy (Section 61) can bring up to 6 months’ jail or fines. In severe cases, even life imprisonment is possible. Cheating (Section 318) can mean several months to 3 years in prison plus fines.
Cheating by personation (Section 319) carries harsher punishment of up to 5 years. Multiple charges may mean longer combined jail terms, heavy fines and even property attachment.
Money matters in married couples
In 2018, a Bengaluru woman on maternity leave faced a tough lesson after giving her debit card and PIN to her husband to withdraw ₹25,000 from an SBI ATM. Though the money was debited, he received no cash.
When they approached the bank, SBI cited its “non-transferable” rule. As per the rule, only the account holder is allowed to use the debit card.
Since the account holder (the wife) was not the one using the card, the bank refused to refund the amount. The couple then approached the consumer court, but the court dismissed the case. She should have used a self-cheque or given written authorisation instead, the court said.
