Woman's Partner, His Relatives Can't Be Prosecuted For Cruelty In Absence Of Legal Marriage: Kerala High Court

 In the facts of the case, the marriage between the petitioner husband and the de facto complainant wife was declared as null and void by the Family Court in 2013 after finding that the complainant wife's prior marriage was subsisting and had not dissolved. The high court thus said since the marriage has been declared as null and void, then there is "no legal marriage in the eye of law". 

Referring to the court's recent decision on the subject, a single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held:

“Thus it is emphatically clear that when there is no legal marriage the woman's partner did not attain the status of her husband and an offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted only against her husband or relative/relatives of her husband. Therefore, in the absence of a legal marriage as borne out from the records, no offence under Section 498A of IPC would get attracted against the partner of a woman or against the partner's relatives since the partner without a legal marriage would not occupy the status of husband.

The de facto complainant wife alleged that the petitioner subjected her to cruelty during their stay at matrimonial house after marriage which was solemnized on November 2, 2009.

The Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted there was no legal marriage subsisting between the parties for prosecution of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. It was stated that the marriage of the petitioner and de facto complainant was solemnized on November 2, 2009 while the first marriage of de facto complainant had been subsisting and not dissolved. It was argued that the marriage between the petitioner and de facto complainant was declared as null and void by the Family Court due to the subsistence of the prior marriage.

Relying upon precedents, the Court observed that an essential ingredient to attract an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is that cruelty must be committed by the husband or relatives of the husband. 

It also noted that Section 85 of the BNS is in pari materia to 498A of IPC.

"Here the petitioner/1st accused never stood on the status of a husband at any point of time, since the marriage was null and void from the very beginning and the same was declared as such, subsequently. Therefore, the prosecution case to the effect that the petitioner committed offence under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC would not stand and accordingly, this matter would require quashment. In the result, this petition stands allowed," it said.

As such, the high court quashed the criminal case and proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Anr

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ramakumar, Advocates S.M.Prasanth, T.Ramprasad Unni, T.H.Aravind, R.S.Aswini Sankar, G.Renjith, M.Manojkumar (Chelakkadan)

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 688

Click Here To Read/Download Order