The petitioner man had alleged that the complainant and him were not legally married and thus she could not have lodged a cruelty case against him and at most his relationship with her could be called a “live-in” relationship for which cruelty cannot be invoked.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “When a man induces a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him and thereafter subjects her to cruelty, such a man cannot be permitted to evade criminal responsibility on the plea that no valid marriage existed in law”.
The court noted that the Petitioner and complainant lived together in a relationship having all the trappings of a marital union, where they cohabited, represented themselves as husband and wife, and performed domestic and social obligations typically associated with marriage.
The complainant (respondent no. 2) had alleged that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 17-10-2010 as per Hindu customs, after which they were both living together in Bengaluru and thereafter, since her husband had job/work at Nanjappa Life Care Hospital at Shivamogga, they had shifted there.
In the month of July 2016, when she went for treatment to her parents’ house at Bangalore and when she returned on 18-08-2016, to her surprise, she found the house had been vacated and the petitioner and his family members had taken all the properties by colluding with the owner of the house. Following which she lodged the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 380, 143, 114, 498 AA, read with Section 149 of IPC.
In another complaint registered based on the statement made to the police at the Government KC General hospital, it was alleged that on 05.09.2016, at about 10 pm, the petitioners and other accused quarrelled with her.
It was alleged that he had poured kerosene on the complainant and set her ablaze with an intention to cause her death and she sustained left leg burn injuries. On the basis of her statement FIR was registered for offences under section 498A, 307, read with 34 of the IPC, and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against the petitioner. He moved the high court seeking quashing of FIR.
The petitioner argued that complainant is not his legally wedded wife as he was already married; thus there could be no valid second marriage with complainant.
He claimed that at most, the relationship between him and Respondent No. 2 could be a live-in relationship. Them living together would not attract the offence of Section 498A, which can only be attracted in a valid and legal marital relationship, he said.
The bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that the expression “husband” in Section 498A cannot encompass a person who, in law, cannot be deemed to be a husband — such as one whose earlier marriage is subsisting, rendering the subsequent marriage void ab initio.
“The Court cannot permit the accused to take advantage of his own wrong, particularly where he himself has acted in deceit and bad faith to induce Respondent No.2 into a relationship clothed with the appearance of marriage,” it said.
Following which it held “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 under the guise of invalid marital relationships. The courts cannot countenance such a perverse consequence.”
It added that 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.
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: X AND State of Karnataka & ANR
