The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a man cannot avoid prosecution for domestic cruelty merely by challenging the legal validity of his marriage, particularly when he is accused of concealing an existing union to enter a domestic partnership.
Justice Uday Kumar, while rejecting a revision petition on September 2, held that penal protections against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code extend to couples living together in a relationship akin to marriage. The bench concluded that individuals who cohabit with shared domestic lives and the intent to live as spouses remain accountable under the law, displacing rigid requirements of a formally flawless marriage.
The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and instructed that the trial proceed without being influenced by any observations made in the High Court order.
Allegations of Deception and Domestic Abuse
The ruling arose from a 2022 criminal case involving allegations of cheating, extortion, and cruelty. The complainant stated that she met the accused in 2019, during which he presented himself as an unmarried orphan. According to her statement, she converted to Islam at his persuasion, and the two underwent a religious marriage ceremony in July 2020.
The woman subsequently learned that the man was already married. She alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical and mental abuse after uncovering the prior marriage, culminating in her being evicted from their home in May 2022.
Disputed Marriage and Evidence of Cohabitation
In his petition to quash the 2022 proceedings, the man argued that the prosecution lacked legal grounds. He pointed out that the complainant had no documentary proof of their Islamic marriage and contended that the relationship was legally void, further asserting that the woman was bound by a previous subsisting marriage.
State counsel contested the petition, maintaining that questions regarding deceit and the factual nature of their relationship were evidentiary matters that had to be examined during trial.
Addressing the dispute, the High Court cited Supreme Court precedents establishing that formal legal perfection in a marriage is not an absolute prerequisite to maintain charges under Section 498A. The bench took note of witness statements, including that of the couple’s landlord, who testified that the two had resided on his premises as husband and wife.
Finding that the evidence pointed to cohabitation in the nature of marriage, the court determined that shutting down the case would result in injustice and permitted the criminal prosecution to go forward.
