Couple Living Together Under 'Marriage Agreement' Not Husband-Wife, No Prosecution U/S 498A IPC: Kerala High Court

Justice Sophy Thomas observed thus:

“In the case on hand, since the marriage between the 1st revision petitioner and deceased Chandrika was not solemnised, and they started living together on the basis of a marriage agreement, which has no legal sanctity in the eye of law, they have to be treated as persons in live-in-relation, and they were not husband and wife, in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court went wrong in finding the revision petitioners guilty under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing them for that offence.”

The deceased and 1^st revision petitioner eloped and they were living together as husband and wife based on a marriage agreement. Due to alleged ill-treatment from the man's family, the deceased attempted suicide by self-immolation using kerosene and succumbed to her burn injuries. The Trial Court convicted the man and family under Sections 498A, 306 IPC and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court. The revision petitioners thus approached the High Court.

The Court on examining the validity of the conviction found that no evidence was brought on record to show that the marriage between the 1^st revision petitioner and deceased were solemnized under any form of marriage either religious or customary. The Court found that they were living together as husband and wife based on a marriage agreement which has no legal sanctity. The Court found that even if the marriage agreement was registered, it cannot be replaced for a legally valid marriage. Thus, the Court found that they were living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage document. The Court found that a woman can seek legal recourse under Section 498A IPC only when there was a legally valid marriage between the parties.

“When there is some form of marriage either religious or customary which has the colour of a legal marriage, then also, the woman can seek protection under Section 498A of IPC though later, for some reason as mentioned above, that marriage is found to be invalid in the eye of law. But, when there was no solemnisation of marriage at all, and only live in relationship on the basis of a marriage agreement, then the woman cannot seek shelter under Section 498A of IPC, saying that they were holding out to the society as man and wife by their long cohabitation.”

The Court relied upon Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others (2004) to state that the expression ‘husband’ under Section 498A IPC would only cover a person who enters into a marital relationship. It also relied upon Shivcharan Lal Verma and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) to state that there must be a valid marital relationship between the accused and the victim for attracting an offence under Section 498 A IPC. The Court held that only a legally wedded wife can prosecute her husband for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The Court also relied upon Unnikrishnan vs. State of Kerala (2017) and Suprabha vs. State of Kerala (2013) to state that valid marriage was essential for prosecuting under Section 498A IPC and live in relationship was not sufficient to attract an offence of cruelty.

The Court found that the dying declaration of the deceased stated that the 1^st revision petitioner was a loving husband and it was the family members who ill-treated her. The Court also noted that there were no specific allegations made against the family, except general allegations of mistreatment. It also found that the conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide was not sustainable because there was nothing to show that the 1^st and 4^th revision petitioner did any positive act for abetting her suicide. It found that the allegations were mostly against the parents, 2^nd and 3^rd revision petitioners, who were no more.

The Court relied upon M.Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011) and Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2019) to state that conviction cannot be made under Section 306 IPC without a positive action of harassment on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide.

The Court found that the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving the offences of cruelty or abetment to suicide against the revision petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction of the 1^st and 4^th revision petitioner and ordered their release from the prison.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate K.P. Balagopal

Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor Nima Jacob

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 569

Case title: Narayanan v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 2343 OF 2005

Click here to download/read Order