Plea Alleging Cruelty During Marriage Not Maintainable After Divorce: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when a marriage has already been dissolved, a petition under 498A and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable. The order was passed in a criminal revision petition filed by the accused and his parents challenging the dismissal order passed against their discharge petitions in a criminal case filed in section 498A of the IPC...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when a marriage has already been dissolved, a petition under 498A and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable.
The order was passed in a criminal revision petition filed by the accused and his parents challenging the dismissal order passed against their discharge petitions in a criminal case filed in section 498A of the IPC and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
It was contended that the complainant under the dowry prohibition act can only be entertained when that is a subsisting marriage between the parties. However, in the present case, the marriage was already dissolved in 2015.
Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao relying on P. Siva Kumar & ors. V. State Rep., by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors, held:
"In light of the observations outlined in the aforementioned decision, this Court perceives that there is no utility in prolonging the proceedings against the accused individuals, especially in light of the Family Court's order nullifying the marriage between the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent."
Background:
The petitioners/accused/ex-husband and in-laws of the defacto complainant stated that originally an FIR was filed against them in the year 2015. They approached the Court seeking an anticipatory bail, and the petition was allowed directing the investigating officers to issue a 41-A notice.
However, in stark disregard of the order, the petitioners claimed that without conducting an investigation and solely relying on the contents of the complainant filed by the de facto complainant, the petitioners were arrested.
Criminal proceedings were initiated in 2016 and the petitioners filed a petition for discharge. They pleaded that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the accused/husband had been dissolved by way of an FCOP in 2015.
However, the trial Court disregarded the order passed in the Family Petition and dismissed the discharge petition.
Challenging the same, the present revision petition was filed.
The Court noted, relying on State of Bihar V Ramesh Singh ; Union of India v Prafulla K Samal that while disposing a petition filed under section 227 and 228 of the CrPc, the Court need not delve into the details of the case. Rather, establish only whether a prima facie case is made out or not.
Drawing attention to the decree passed by the family court dissolving the marriage of petitioner no. 1 and de-facto complainant, the Court held:
"It appears that both parties have reached an amicable compromise, rendering the continuation of the proceedings unnecessary. In light of these circumstances, this Court is inclined to believe that the Petitioners have established a case warranting the allowing of the Revision Case."
Lastly, the Court held that the allegations were vague and made without proof.
Thus, the Criminal Revision petition was allowed and all three petitioners were discharged in the criminal case.
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 165/2023
Counsel for petitioners: Shaik Md Umar Abdullah for Challa Gunaranjan
Counsel for respondent: PP