Section 498A IPC Applies Even to Void Marriages and Live-In Relationships: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code extends to void or voidable marriages as well as live-in relationships, holding that a man cannot escape criminal liability for cruelty by claiming the marriage was void due to his own undisclosed prior marriage. Such an interpretation, the Court held, would defeat the remedial purpose of the provision.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj examined whether the term “husband” in Section 498A applies only to legally valid marriages or also extends to void marriages and relationships in the nature of marriage where a woman is subjected to cruelty.

The Court heard Criminal Petition Nos. 8134/2024 and 9412/2021 filed by the accused seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 498A and other offences pending before two courts—one at Shivamogga and another at Bengaluru.

The complainant alleged that she married the petitioner on 17.10.2010 as per Hindu customs. They lived together in Bengaluru and later shifted to Shivamogga for the petitioner’s work. In July 2016, when she returned from her parents’ house after treatment, she found the house vacated along with all belongings, prompting a theft complaint.

Subsequently, a more serious complaint was filed on 07.09.2016 alleging that at the time of marriage, her family gave 1 kg gold, 3 kg silver, and ₹10 lakh cash. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family allegedly harassed her mentally and physically with dowry demands. Critically, the petitioner had not disclosed his earlier marriage. On 05.09.2016, the petitioner allegedly quarrelled with her, poured kerosene, and set her ablaze with the intention to cause death. Two unknown persons rescued her, and she sustained burn injuries on her left leg.

The petitioner argued that he was already married and had a daughter from that marriage. Since the first marriage subsisted, the second marriage was void ab initio. He therefore claimed that he could not be deemed a “husband” under Section 498A, which explicitly refers to “husband or relative of husband.” At best, he contended, the relationship amounted to a live-in arrangement that did not attract Section 498A.

He also argued that the statement recorded by the Head Constable at KC General Hospital was not recorded in the presence of a duty doctor and would therefore be inadmissible. Had the complainant died, it could have been treated as a dying declaration requiring compliance with procedural safeguards.

Additionally, he contended that the complainant had filed multiple false complaints between 2013 and 2015 before various authorities only to harass him, and that parallel proceedings under Section 498A could not continue before two different forums.

Justice Govindaraj rejected the technical interpretation of Section 498A, observing:

“The argument proceeds on an unduly technical construction of the provision, divorced from its legislative purpose and the social context in which it operates. A penal provision enacted to remedy a social evil must be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of the legislation rather than defeats it.”

The Court emphasized:

“The accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong, particularly when he has acted in deceit and bad faith to induce Respondent No. 2 into a relationship clothed with the appearance of marriage.”

It further held:

“If the petitioner’s submission were accepted, it would lead to a manifestly unjust situation—where a man who deceives a woman into a void marriage by concealing his earlier marriage could then escape criminal liability under Section 498A. This would defeat the purpose of the enactment and encourage fraud and exploitation of women under the guise of invalid marital relationships.”

On purposive interpretation, the Court held:

“The term ‘husband’ in Section 498A must receive a broad and purposive construction. Protection cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of a void marriage. Where a man induces a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him and thereafter subjects her to cruelty, he cannot evade criminal responsibility.”

On live-in relationships, the Court noted:

“The facts clearly show that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 lived together in a relationship having all the trappings of a marital union—cohabitation, social representation, and domestic responsibilities. Such a relationship falls squarely within a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage,’ colloquially known as a live-in relationship, thereby attracting Section 498A.”

The Court concluded:

“The test is not whether the marriage is legally valid but whether the relationship has been abused in a manner the provision seeks to prevent.”

On dual prosecution, Justice Govindaraj held that proceedings under Section 498A cannot continue simultaneously in two forums to avoid conflicting judgments. The Shivamogga proceedings were therefore transferred to Bengaluru.

On the dying declaration argument, the Court rejected it outright:

“A dying declaration arises only when the maker of the statement has died. In this case, Respondent No. 2 is alive and actively prosecuting the matter. Hence, the question does not arise.”

The petitions were dismissed, and proceedings in CC No. 630/2019 (Shivamogga) were transferred to the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to be tried along with CC No. 28129/2023.

Sri A.N. Radhakrishna appeared for the petitioner, while Sri M.R. Patil (HCGP) represented the State.

Case Title: Criminal Petition Nos. 8134/2024 and 9412/2021

[Read Order]