The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are attracted even in cases of a void or voidable marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, such as a “live-in” relationship.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while dismissing petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings against a cardiologist and his family, held that a man cannot be permitted to defeat the operation of Section 498A IPC by invoking the validity of his own second marriage or by claiming the relationship lacked legal sanctity.
Case Background
The Court was hearing two criminal petitions (Crl.P. No. 8134 of 2024 and Crl.P. No. 9412 of 2021). The petitioner (Accused No. 1) is a cardiologist.
The de facto complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleged that she married the petitioner on October 17, 2010, as per Hindu customs. She stated that her family gave gold, silver, and cash at the time of marriage. They lived together in Bengaluru and later in Shivamogga.
The complainant alleged two specific sets of circumstances leading to criminal cases:
- Theft and Harassment (Shivamogga): In July 2016, upon returning from her parents’ home, she found her matrimonial house vacated and property taken by the petitioner. A case was registered for offences under Section 380 (Theft) and later Section 498A IPC.
- Attempt to Murder (Bengaluru): On September 5, 2016, a quarrel ensued when the complainant questioned the petitioner about his earlier undisclosed marriage. It was alleged that the petitioner poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She sustained burn injuries and was treated at KC General Hospital. A case was registered for offences under Sections 498A, 307 (Attempt to Murder), 494 (Bigamy), 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, argued that:
- No Valid Marriage: The petitioner was already married to one Smt. Naveena, and that marriage was subsisting. Therefore, the marriage with Respondent No. 2 was void ab initio. He contended that the term “husband” in Section 498A implies a legally valid marriage, and a live-in relationship does not attract the provision.
- Admissibility of Statement: The statement recorded by the Head Constable at the hospital was not recorded in the presence of a doctor. He argued that if the complainant had died, this statement would not have stood the test of a dying declaration due to procedural lapses.
- Double Jeopardy: The petitioner was being prosecuted for the same offence (Section 498A) in two different courts (Shivamogga and Bengaluru).
The State, represented by HCGP Sri M.R. Patil, and counsel for the respondent argued that the admitted cohabitation is sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 498A. They contended that the Bengaluru case involved a distinct offence of attempt to murder committed within that jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
1. Scope of “Husband” under Section 498A IPC
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Section 498A only applies to valid marriages. Justice Govindaraj observed that the legislative intent is to protect women from cruelty and the provision must be given a “purposive and expansive construction.”
The Court observed:
“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.”
The Court further held:
“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, so long as the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in the explanation to the section are satisfied.”
The Bench noted that the parties had cohabited, represented themselves as husband and wife, and discharged marital obligations. The Court stated that the petitioner “cannot be permitted to defeat the operation of Section 498A IPC by invoking the validity of his own second marriage” after inducing the woman into the relationship through deception.
2. Prosecution in Two Fora
Regarding the petitioner’s contention about facing trial for Section 498A in two different courts, the High Court found substance in the argument. The Court noted that trying the same offence in two matters could lead to conflicting judgments.
3. Validity of the Victim’s Statement
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding the procedural irregularities of the statement recorded at the hospital (treated as a potential dying declaration). The Court clarified that the concept of a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 26(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) applies only when the maker of the statement has died.
The Court observed:
“In the present case, Respondent No.2 has survived… Consequently, the question of the statement being treated or tested as a dying declaration does not arise. The statement made by Respondent No.2 is, therefore, to be regarded as an ordinary statement of a witness or victim… and its probative value must be assessed during the course of trial.”
Decision
The High Court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash the proceedings. However, to address the issue of multiple proceedings for the same offence, the Court ordered the transfer of the case pending in Shivamogga (C.C.No.630/2019) to the Court of the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to be tried along with the Bengaluru case (C.C.No.28129/2023).
