'They Resided Together As Husband-Wife': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Man Charged With Dowry Death Of 'Live-In' Partner

A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by a man challenging a Prayagraj sessions court order that rejected his plea for discharge in a dowry death case of his alleged live-in partner.

Before the Court, the applicant argued that the deceased had started living with him in a live-in relationship, and no marriage had occurred between them. In fact, the deceased had married Rohit Yadav, and even one year had not passed since the said marriage.

In view of this, it was argued that the deceased was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and thus, no prima facie case under Section 304-B IPC is made out.

On the other hand, the AGA opposed the application and submitted that in the FIR, it had been mentioned that after the marriage of the deceased with Rohit Yadav, she was divorced by him. After that, the marriage of the deceased with the applicant took place through court, and the applicant used to harass her on account of dowry, due to which she died by suicide.

It was also submitted that whether the marriage between the deceased and the applicant was lawful or not is a question of fact that can only be examined during the trial.

Agreeing with the AGA's submission, the Court noted that the FIR clearly averred that the marriage had indeed taken place between the deceased and the applicant, and it was also undisputed that she was residing with the applicant at the time of the incident.

Otherwise, the Court added, whether the deceased was legally wedded to the applicant's wife cannot be decided in these proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

“At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence,” the Court observed.

Further, the single judge relief upon top court judgment in the case of Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam And Ors 2004 wherein it was held that a man who cohabitates with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as "husband" could not be taken out of from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC.

The Court also relied upon the Chhattisgarh HC's judgment in the case of Mohitram vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2004 wherein it was held that the intention of the legislature behind inserting the provisions of Section - 304-B IPC was that the husband and his relatives, who are responsible for the dowry death of a woman should be brought into mischief of dowry death whether the marriage in question was valid or not.

In this case, it was further observed that to attract provisions of Section - 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C., it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant time.

“In the instant case, for the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the deceased does not fall within the ambit of legally wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that applicant and deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point of time,” the Single judge further noted.

In view of this, the Court rejected the argument that the provisions of Section 304-B IPC won't be applicable to this case, and hence, the plea under section 482 CrPC was dismissed.