Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Extends To Void Or Voidable Marriages And Live-In Relationships; Karnataka High Court Dismisses Man’s Plea To Quash Case Over Alleged Attempt To Set Woman Ablaze
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that Section 498A IPC on cruelty is attracted even where the marriage is void or voidable, and also in relationships in the nature of marriage, including live-in relationships, provided the statutory ingredients are otherwise satisfied. Deciding petitions by a man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court rejected his contention that the complainant could not maintain a cruelty case as they were not legally married and were at best in a live-in relationship, despite allegations that he attempted to set her on fire and subjected her to dowry-related harassment. The Court dismissed the petitions and directed that both criminal cases be tried together in Bengaluru.
The matter arose from complaints filed by the de facto complainant alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, and attempt to murder against the petitioner. The complainant stated that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised in 2010, after which they lived together in Bengaluru and later in Shivamogga. In 2016, she alleged that the petitioner vacated their residence without her knowledge, leading to registration of a theft case. Subsequently, additional charges under Sections 143, 114, and 498A IPC were added.
Another complaint recorded in September 2016 alleged dowry demands, concealment of an earlier marriage, and an incident where kerosene was poured on the complainant with intent to kill. Based on her statement, offences under Sections 498A, 307, 494, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were registered. The petitioner contended that the complainant was not his legally wedded wife due to a subsisting earlier marriage, and therefore Section 498A could not apply. He also argued that the statement recorded at the hospital was inadmissible and that multiple complaints were filed to harass him. The State submitted that the offences were distinct, with attempt to murder alleged in Bengaluru, and supported joint trial of both proceedings.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded: “Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which reads as follows: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The Court stated: “A careful perusal of the above statutory provision reveals that the legislative intent underlying Section 498A IPC is to protect a woman from cruelty at the hands of her husband or his relatives.”
It further observed: “The argument proceeds on an unduly technical construction of the provision, divorced from its legislative purpose and the social context in which it operates.”
Justice Govindaraj noted: “If the Petitioner's submission were to be accepted, it would produce a manifestly unjust and anomalous result - namely, that a man who deceives a woman into a void marriage by concealing his earlier marriage could then escape criminal liability under Section 498A merely because the relationship lacks legal validity.”
The Court recorded: “The term ‘husband’ in Section 498A must be given a purposive and expansive construction, and the protection afforded by the provision cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of a void marriage.”
On the issue of parallel proceedings, the Court stated: “There is substance in the said submission inasmuch as it being categorical that the offence under Section 498A is being tried in both matters, there is a possibility of conflicting judgments being rendered by two different courts, and as such, in my considered opinion, both the matters would have to be tried together.”
Regarding the hospital statement, the Court observed: “In the present case, Respondent No.2 has survived; she continues to be alive and is actively prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the question of the statement being treated or tested as a dying declaration does not arise.”
It concluded: “Therefore, the test of admissibility applicable to a dying declaration cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be invoked to invalidate or discredit the statement of a living witness or victim.”
The Court directed: “In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that prosecution could not be continued in two different fora prosecuting the accused for the very same offence under Section 498A. The proceedings in CC No. 630 of 2019, pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division) and JMFC, Shivamogga, is transferred to the Court of the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with CC No. 28129 of 2023.”
“In view of the above discussion, I answer Point No. 1 by holding that the provisions of Section 498A IPC are attracted even in cases of a void or voidable marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, provided the ingredients of the offence are otherwise established.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Harsha Kumar Gowda H R., Advocate; Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. M.R. Patil; Sri. Santhosh Kumar M.B., Advocate; Sri. Udaya Prakash Muliya, Advocate
Case Title: X v State of Karnataka & ANR
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:47594
Case Number: CRL.P No. 8134 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 9412 of 2021
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
