Based on this, the Court observed that an essential ingredient to attract an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is that cruelty must be committed by the husband or relatives of the husband.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has thrown out a criminal case against a man accused under Section 498A of the IPC (cruelty by a husband or relatives towards a married woman) by his “wife.” The court determined that in the absence of documentation proving a legal marriage between the parties, prosecution for cruelty against him or his relatives cannot proceed.
The case concerns a marriage between the petitioner (husband) and the de facto complainant (wife), which a family court annulled in 2013 after discovering that the wife’s prior marriage was still valid and had not been dissolved. The high court stated that since the marriage has been declared null and void, there is “no legal marriage in the eyes of the law.”
“It is abundantly clear that, in the absence of a legal marriage, the woman’s partner does not acquire the status of a husband, and an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is applicable only to a husband or his relatives. Therefore, without a legal marriage as indicated in the records, Section 498A cannot be applied to a woman’s partner or the partner’s relatives, as a partner without legal marital status is not recognized as a husband,” the court ruled.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty during their time together at the matrimonial home following their marriage on November 2, 2009. The man’s counsel contended that no legal marriage existed between the parties, which would justify prosecution under Section 498A for cruelty.
In response, the court observed that a fundamental requirement for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is that the cruelty must be perpetrated by the husband or his relatives.
“The petitioner, as the first accused, never possessed the status of a husband at any point, as the marriage was null and void from the outset and was later officially declared as such. Therefore, the prosecution’s assertion that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 498A in conjunction with Section 34 of the IPC is unfounded and must be quashed. As a result, this petition is granted,” the court concluded, dismissing the criminal case and all proceedings against the man.
