A criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is maintainable even after the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

The revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. (E) 18/2005, now pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai.

2. Petitioners herein have prayed for quashing the case registered under Sections 498(A)/ 384 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The main contention of the petitioners as reflected in the recital of the revisional application appears to be that an application was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage in connection with M.A.T. Suit No. 238/2003. Opposite Party No. 2 entered appearance in connection with the said suit and filed an application on 29.8.2003, expressing her willingness and gave her consent for divorce.

4. She also received all her ornaments, furniture and cash of Rs. 15,000/-. The matrimonial suit was disposed of on 3.9.2003 and the marriage tie between the parties was dissolved by a decree for divorce passed by the learned Court below.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that as the marriage tie is no more in existence and as the criminal case was initiated after the decree for divorce, the same is not maintainable in the eye of law and as such the entire proceeding is required to be quashed in exercise of power of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners in support of the revisional application submitted that in view of the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Contai in connection with Matrimonial Suit No. 238/2003 whereby the learned Civil Court dissolved the Matrimonial tie between the parties on consideration of the solenama petition and granted a decree for divorce, then the criminal prosecution, which is registered after the aforesaid decree cannot continue.

7. In support of the contention learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to the following decisions:-

(1) Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38.

(2) State of J & K v. Romesh Chander & Ors., reported in 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 90.

(3) Ashok Singhal v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2005 Cri. LJ 2324.

(4) Mrs. Rupinder Kaur & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT) & Anr., reported in 2000 Cri. LJ 1520.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces Case Diary and drew the attention of this Court to the recital in the petition of complaint as well as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during investigation conducted by the police officer.

9. In this case charge-sheet is already submitted against the accused persons (petitioners herein) for commission of offence punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code as mentioned above.

10. The main contention of the petitioners if accepted will lead to the proposition that in order to prosecute the husband or the relatives of the husband, within the meaning of Section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the marriage tie between the parties must be subsisting. I am afraid that this is not the correct proposition of law. It is not a pre-condition that in order to initiate a prosecution under Section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the marriage tie between the parties must be subsisting on the date of filing the petition of complaint or FIR.

11. The decision referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioners as stated above has no manner of application for deciding the present revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

12. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. case (supra), Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution.

13. In State of J & K v. Romesh Chander & Ors. case (supra), Supreme Court held that High Court must look into the relevant law and allegations made in the charge-sheet and then consi