Second Wife Cannot Initiate Criminal Proceedings Against Husband For Offence U/s. 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the second wife cannot initiate criminal proceedings against the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and granted bail to the husband.
The Bench allowed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging the impugned order of the Sessions Court, wherein the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentencing order of the Principal Civil Judge.
The Court noted that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was unsustainable because the marriage between the parties was null and void as the Complainant was the second wife of the Petitioner.
The Bench of Justice S Rachaiah observed, “The ratio of these two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that, if the marriage between the husband and wife ended as null and void, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be sustained”
Advocate Chetan Desai appeared for the Petitioner and Government Pleader Rahul Rai K appeared for the Respondents.
The Complainant was married to the Petitioner as her second wife but due to an unfortunate incident, the Complainant was affected due to paralysis, leading her to lose control over her legs and become incapacitated. It was alleged that the Petitioner subjected her to mental torture and cruelty. Later, the Petitioner outed her from the Matrimonial Home and she was forced to run a petty shop for her livelihood. As per the complaint, the Petitioner also threatened to set the shop on fire along with her. The Complainant filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court placed reliance on Supreme Court Judgement in the cases of Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2007) 15 SCC 369) and P.Sivakumar & Others v. State (Crl.A.No.1408-1409/2012) and held that the marriage between the Complainant and the Petitioner was null and void as the Petitioner was already married to another woman. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of the Supreme Court in the abovementioned case, the Court held that offence under Section 498 A could not be sustained against the Petitioner.
The Court observed that the Sessions Court erred in passing a conviction order against the Petitioner and therefore the Court could intervene in the conviction order exercising its revisional jurisdiction. “In other words, complaint filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable. The Courts below committed error in applying the principles and also the law on this aspect. Therefore, interference by this Court in exercising the Revisional jurisdiction is justified”, the Court asserted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition, granted bail to the Petitioner and set aside the impugned orders.
Cause Title: Kantharaju v. State of Karnataka
Click here to read/download the Order
