The Karnataka High Court has held that if a woman is mistreated by her partner after being misled into believing she is married to him, the man may still face prosecution for marital cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) even if he is not legally recognized as her husband.

The Court stated that Section 498A of the IPC (now replaced by Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023) applies not only to legally valid marriages but also to relationships that have the characteristics of a marriage.

"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," ruled Justice Suraj Govindaraj.

The Court was hearing petitions filed by a man and his family against criminal proceedings pending against them on complaints by his partner (complainant).

The complainant had claimed that she was subjected to marital cruelty, dowry demands. Among other allegations, she also claimed that the accused tried to burn her after dousing her with kerosene.

According to the case records, the complainant believed that she had married the petitioner in 2010 and lived with him at different locations.

In 2016, she filed a criminal complaint in Shivamogga after returning home to find their shared residence vacated. The police initially registered a theft case, but later added Section 498A, IPC, based on additional statements.

That same year, a separate incident was reported in Bengaluru, where a statement recorded at a hospital alleged dowry-related harassment and an attempt to burn the complainant after kerosene was poured on her.

The Bengaluru police registered a case citing the offences under Sections 498A, 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (insult to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 494 of the IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In his defence, the complainant's partner (man) stated that the complainant could not invoke Section 498A of the IPC, a law that criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.

He argued that his relationship with the complainant did not constitute a valid marriage. He insisted that their association was merely a live-in relationship.

He added that he was married to another woman and had a daughter from that marriage.

These arguments were dismissed by the High Court.

"The term 'husband' in Section 498A must be given a purposive and expansive construction, and the protection afforded by the provision 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, such a man cannot be permitted to evade criminal responsibility on the plea that no valid marriage existed in law," the Court held.

It concluded that Section 498A of the IPC can be invoked in cases where a woman who was misled to believe that she was in a married relationship faces cruelty from her partner. The judge opined that this law should be interpreted in a manner that advances its goal of tackling the social evil of marital cruelty.

"It is well settled that a penal provision enacted to remedy a social evil must be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of the legislation rather than in a manner that defeats it. The Court cannot permit the accused to take advantage of his own wrong, particularly where he himself has acted in deceit and bad faith to induce Respondent No.2 (complainant) into a relationship clothed with the appearance of marriage," the Court said.

It, therefore, declined to halt the criminal trials against the accused petitioners. However, on noting that two complaints in the matter were pending before two separate trial courts, the High Court issued directions so both cases can be heard together by a trial court in Bengaluru.

The petitioners were represented by advocates Harsha Kumar Gowda HR and AN Radhakrishna

The State was represented by High Court Government Pleader MR Patil.

The complainant was represented by advocate Santhosh Kumar MB and Udaya Prakash Muliya.

[Read Order]