BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court held that the expression “husband” in Section 498A of IPC (cruelty and harassment against a married woman) is not confined to a man in a legally valid marriage alone, but also extends to one who enters into a marital relationship which is valid 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 said provision are satisfied.
“The facts... clearly show that the petitioner and complainant, who is the respondent to the case, lived together in a relationship having all the trappings of a marital union. They cohabited, represented themselves as husband and wife, and performed domestic and social obligations typically associated with marriage.
The relationship thus falls squarely within what has been recognised in recent times as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, or colloquially known as a “Live-In” relationship, attracting the protective umbrella of Section 498A, provided the factual allegations satisfy the elements of “cruelty” as defined in the explanation to the said Section,” it observed.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the contention of the counsel for the petitioner-husband from Shivamogga that the Section cannot be invoked as the requirement is the existence of a legally valid marital relationship between the complainant-wife and the accused.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that since the petitioner’s marriage with the complainant is void, null, and without legal sanctity, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Sect 498A. The petitioner, already married, cannot be regarded as the “husband” of the complainant and no offence under Sec 498A can be made out against him, the counsel argued.
The court said it cannot accept the contention, and cannot permit the accused-petitioner to take advantage of his own wrong, particularly when he acted in bad faith to induce the complainant into a relationship clothed as marriage.
The court said the petitioner had already married another woman and had a child. He suppressed that fact, married the complainant and lived with her.
It is alleged that the petitioner received gold, silver and cash from the complainant and her family. But he allegedly made further demands, while subjecting the woman to harassment and cruelty, including an attempt to cause her death. If the petitioner’s contention is accepted, it would be a manifestly unjust and anomalous result.
It would send out a signal 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.