Section 498A IPC Applicable In Cases Of Live-In Relationship Or Void Marriage: Karnataka High Court

The High Court observed that where a woman is deceived into cohabiting under the belief of marriage, and allegations of cruelty or dowry-related harassment exist, the accused cannot evade criminal liability by claiming that the marriage is void in law.

The Court was hearing petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed by the accused seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under Section 498A IPC and related provisions, arising out of allegations that the petitioner suppressed a prior subsisting marriage and thereafter subjected the complainant to cruelty, including demands for dowry.

A Bench comprising Justice Suraj Govindaraj, upon hearing the matter, held that the beneficial nature of Section 498A requires a purposive interpretation to ensure that protection against cruelty is not defeated due to technical pleas regarding the validity of marriage.

The Bench, while making these observations, accordingly remarked that “the expression ‘husband’ in Section 498A IPC is not confined to a man in a legally valid marriage, but extends to one who enters into a marital relationship which is void or voidable, as also to a live-in relationship which bears the attributes of marriage, so long as the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in the explanation to the section are satisfied”.

Advocate AN Radhakrishna appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Udaya Prakash Muliya represented the respondents.

Background

According to the complaint, the petitioner married the complainant, and they cohabited in Bengaluru and later in Shivamogga. It was alleged that gold, silver articles and cash were given by the complainant’s family at the time of marriage, and further unlawful demands were made later. The complainant alleged physical and mental harassment, including an incident in which kerosene was poured on her with an alleged attempt to set her ablaze.

During the investigation, it emerged that the petitioner had a prior marriage with another woman, which continued to subsist. The petitioner argued that this rendered the marriage with the complainant void ab initio and, therefore, Section 498A of the IPC would not apply.

Parallel proceedings under Section 498A were pending before two courts, one arising from the alleged dowry harassment and another from the allegation of attempted murder. This led to a further plea that proceedings were an abuse of process.

Court’s Observation

The Karnataka High Court first analysed the scope and purpose of Section 498A IPC, noting that it was enacted to safeguard married women from cruelty, whether in the form of grave physical or mental harm or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands. It emphasised that the provision must be interpreted so as to advance its social-welfare objective.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that only a legally valid husband can be prosecuted, the Court noted that the legislative intent cannot be defeated by allowing a man to escape liability for his own deceit. The Court observed that when a person intentionally induces a woman into believing she is lawfully married to him, cohabits with her and later subjects her to cruelty, he cannot deny the existence of a “marital relationship” to avoid prosecution.

The Court held that the expression “husband” must be construed to include a person who enters into a void or voidable marriage or lives with a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage, so long as the essential ingredients of cruelty are alleged and subject to proof at trial. “The woman cannot be left remediless merely because the man had concealed a subsisting marriage,” the Bench stated.

On the issue of parallel prosecutions for the same offence under Section 498A, the Court found merit in the concern regarding conflicting outcomes and directed that both cases be tried together before the competent court in Bengaluru.

The Court also examined a challenge to the statement recorded from the complainant following the burn-injury incident, clarifying that since the complainant survived, the evidentiary test of a dying declaration did not apply, and issues of evidentiary value must be adjudicated at trial.

Finally, the Court concluded that all allegations disclosed matters requiring evidence and declined to exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings.

Conclusion

Holding that statutory protections must not be defeated at the threshold by technical defences regarding marital validity, the High Court dismissed both petitions and directed the transfer of the connected criminal case from Shivamogga to Bengaluru for joint trial.

The criminal proceedings, the High Court ordered, shall continue strictly in accordance with law and on their merits.

Cause Title: ABC v. State

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates A. N. Radhakrishna and Harsha Kumar Gowda

Respondents: Advocates Udaya Prakash Muliya and Santhosh Kumar M. B, M. R. Patil, HCGP

Click here to read/download Judgment