S.498A IPC Applies to Void Marriages & Live-In Relationships; Accused Can't Benefit from Own Deceit: Karnataka HC - 2025-11-28

S.498A IPC's Protection Extends to Void Marriages and Live-In Relationships, Rules Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has held that the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is applicable even in cases of void or voidable marriages, and relationships "in the nature of marriage." The Court asserted that a man who deceives a woman into a marital relationship cannot later use the marriage's invalidity as a shield to escape prosecution for cruelty.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj delivered the judgment while dismissing petitions filed by a man seeking to quash two separate criminal proceedings initiated against him by his second wife, one of which included an allegation of attempt to murder.

Background of the Case

The petitioner was facing two criminal cases filed by the same complainant (Respondent No. 2).

• Shivamogga Case (C.C.No.630/2019): This case was initiated for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, which was added after an initial complaint of theft.
• Bengaluru Case (C.C.No.28129/2023): This was a more severe case involving charges under Sections 498A, 504 (insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 494 (bigamy) of the IPC, and sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, after a quarrel, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash both proceedings.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Contentions:

• The petitioner's primary argument was that his marriage to the complainant was void ab initio as he was already married to another woman, Smt. Naveena, with whom he has a child.
• He contended that since he was not the complainant's legally wedded "husband," the charge of cruelty under Section 498A IPC could not be invoked. At most, their relationship was a "live-in" one, which falls outside the ambit of the section.
• He argued that he was being prosecuted for the same offence (Section 498A) in two different courts, which is impermissible.
• He also challenged the validity of the complainant's statement recorded at the hospital in the Bengaluru case, arguing it did not meet the procedural requirements of a dying declaration.

State's Submissions:

• The prosecution argued that the Bengaluru case was distinct as it involved a grave offence of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) committed within Bengaluru's jurisdiction.
• It was submitted that an admitted "live-in relationship" is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A, and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongdoing by concealing his first marriage.

Court's Analysis and Landmark Ruling

Justice Suraj Govindaraj framed three key questions for determination and delivered a detailed analysis on each.

1. On the Applicability of S.498A to Void Marriages

The Court firmly rejected the petitioner's technical interpretation of the term "husband." It held that a penal provision enacted to remedy a social evil must be interpreted purposively to advance its objective.

> "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. Such a position would not only defeat the purpose of the enactment but also encourage fraud and exploitation of women."

The Court concluded that the term "husband" in Section 498A must be given an expansive construction.

> "I hold 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..."

2. On Prosecution in Two Different Courts

The Court found substance in the petitioner's argument that he could not be prosecuted for the same offence (Section 498A) in two different forums, as it could lead to conflicting judgments. To remedy this, the Court ordered the transfer of the Shivamogga case to the Bengaluru court.

3. On the 'Dying Declaration' Argument

The Court dismissed this contention as a "fundamental misconception of the law of evidence." It clarified that the stringent rules for a dying declaration are applicable only when the maker of the statement has died. Since the complainant survived, her statement is to be treated as an ordinary statement of a witness, the credibility of which will be tested during the trial.

> "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."

Final Order

Based on its findings, the High Court passed the following order:

* The petitions to quash the criminal proceedings were dismissed .

* The proceedings in C.C. No. 630 of 2019, pending in Shivamogga, were transferred to the Court of the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to be tried along with C.C. No. 28129 of 2023.

* The criminal proceedings against the petitioner will proceed in accordance with the law.