IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Dr. Aswin V. Nair, S/o. Vinaya Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.MC No. 2654 of 2024
Decided On : 08-07-2024
Section 498(A) - Live-in Relationship - The court held that for an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, there must be a valid marital relationship between the accused and the victim. Without a legal marriage, the accused cannot be considered the 'husband' for the purpose of Section 498(A) of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of mentally and physically harassing the defacto complainant during their live-in relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused, not being the legally wedded partner of the defacto complainant, did not come within the purview of the definition of husband under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Issues: The issue revolved around whether the accused's actions during a live-in relationship could be considered an offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that a valid marital relationship is essential to attract an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and all further proceedings in the case were quashed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.939/2023 of Quilandy Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C. No.1471/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Quilandy. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, while the defacto complainant was maintaining a live-in relationship with the accused, during the period from 13.03.2023 to 20.08.2023, at the house of the accused, the accused mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.
4. While canvasing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship between the accused and the defacto complainant was a live-in relationship and there is no legal marriage in between them. Accordingly, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC would not attract in the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of this Court viz. Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala [2017 (4) KHC 356 : 2017 (2) KLD 480 : 2017 (3) KLT 991 : 2017 (3) KLJ 918 : ILR 2017 (4) Ker. 822 : 2018 CriLJ 265] and Narayanan v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KHC 427 : 2023 KHC OnLine 651 : 2023 KER 61827 : 2023 (4) KLJ 590], in this regard.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor also fairly submitted that, even though crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, the relationship between the accused and the defacto complainant was only live-in relationship and no materials brought in to see any legal marriage between them.
6. In a three Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2002 (2) Crimes 177 SC : JT 2002 (2) SC 641], the Apex Court held as under :
For a prosecution under S.498A IPC, there must be a valid marital relationship between the accused and the victim. That is a case where a second wife committed suicide, allegedly due to the acts of cruelty of her husband and the former wife. The victim's marriage with the accused in the said case was void ab initio.
7. Holding so, the Apex Court held that a conviction under Section 498A could not be sustained in such situation. The said ratio has been followed by this Court in Unnikrishnan @ Chandu’s case (supra) and Narayanan’s case (supra).
8. On perusal of the statutory wording under Section 498(A) of IPC, it has been provided as under :
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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
9. Thus, it appears that in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, the most essential ingredient is, subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or relative/relatives of the husband. The term ‘husband @ hubby’ means, a married man, woman’s partner in marriage. Thus, marriage is the constituent which takes the wo
AI
A valid marital relationship is essential to attract an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.
A valid marital relationship is essential for prosecution under Section 498A of IPC; without it, no offence can be established.
In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against relatives cannot sustain criminal charges; specific evidence is required to proceed.
Cruelty under Section 498A IPC is defined independently of any dowry demand; physical and mental abuse constitute sufficient grounds for charges under this section.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offense under Section 498A of the IPC applies only to the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, and individuals outside this d....
The court upheld that prima facie evidence of cruelty and misappropriation exists, warranting trial despite questions regarding the legality of the marriage.
The court found prima facie evidence to sustain charges under Section 498A IPC, while allegations under Section 420 IPC were not substantiated.
A legal marriage is a prerequisite for a conviction under Section 498A IPC, and absence of marriage negates charges of cruelty and dowry demand.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.