The Court rejected an argument that Section 498A IPC could only be invoked by a “legally wedded wife.”
The Kerala High Court recently reaffirmed that a woman in a relationship that appears to be a legal marriage under customary or religious law is also entitled to protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses cruelty towards married women. Justice Sophy Thomas made this statement while overseeing a case in which a man and his family were accused of driving his 18-year-old wife to suicide shortly after their nikah (Muslim marriage contract).
The accused argued that the marriage in this case did not constitute a valid legal union, and as such, Section 498A could not be invoked. They claimed that only a “legally wedded wife” is entitled to protection under Section 498A. However, the Court rejected this argument. Referring to a prior High Court ruling in Narayanan v. State of Kerala, the Court stated:
“If there was some form of marriage, religious or customary, which has the colour of a legal marriage, then also the woman can seek protection under Section 498A, though later, for some reason, that marriage is found to be invalid in the eye of law.”
The Court also cited the case of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & Ors., where the Supreme Court ruled that even if the legality of a marital relationship is contested, Section 498A IPC can still be applied if cruelty is proven.
This case involved an appeal by four individuals (the deceased woman’s husband and in-laws), who had been previously convicted by a trial court under Section 498A IPC for allegedly causing the 18-year-old woman’s suicide in 2002.
The woman had converted from Hinduism to Islam and married the accused man (the first accused) after their families discovered their relationship, which had begun when the woman was under 18 years old.
The Court was informed that religious leaders from both communities intervened in the matter, and it was ultimately agreed that the woman would convert to Islam and marry the first accused once she reached the age of 18.
After receiving Muslim religious teachings, a nikah was conducted between her and the first accused when she turned 18.
The prosecution alleged that after the nikah, her husband and in-laws subjected her to both physical and mental abuse, including dowry-related cruelty, which ultimately drove her to take her own life.
The husband and in-laws were initially charged with offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 304B (dowry death), and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC.
However, the trial court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 304B and 306 due to insufficient evidence. Nonetheless, they were convicted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines.
The accused (appellants) challenged the trial court’s conviction and sentence by filing an appeal before the High Court.
Among other arguments, the appellants claimed that there was no legally valid marriage between the deceased and the first accused, as their relationship was based on a marriage agreement rather than registration under secular law.
The Court rejected this argument, asserting that if a union appears to be a legal marriage, a woman can seek protection under Section 498A IPC, even if the marriage is later declared invalid due to reasons such as age, mental capacity, religion, consanguinity, or an existing spouse.
The Court stated that such marriages should be considered valid between the parties for all practical purposes unless one party challenges it and it is declared void on legitimate grounds. In this case, the Court observed that the marriage had never been legally contested.
The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction, emphasizing that testimonies from the deceased victim’s father, friends, and neighbors corroborated the allegations of physical and mental abuse against the appellants, including claims of dowry demands and mistreatment.
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of these crimes but also noted that the offence occurred in 2002, nearly 22 years ago, and that the deceased woman’s husband was only 19 years old at the time.
Taking this into account, the Court decided to reduce the appellants’ prison sentence.
The sentence for the husband and his mother was reduced from three years to 1.5 years of imprisonment, with each fined ₹25,000. The father-in-law and brother-in-law received a reduced sentence of four months in prison and were each ordered to pay a ₹10,000 fine.
Additionally, the Court directed that ₹50,000 from the fines be paid as compensation to the victim’s father or his legal heirs.
