Woman's Partner In Live-In Relationship Cannot Be Prosecuted For Offence Of Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the proceedings against the petitioner who was the live-in partner of the complainant woman.

“Thus, it appears that in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, the most essential ingredient is, subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or relative/relatives of the husband. The term 'husband @ hubby' means, a married man, woman's partner in marriage. Thus, marriage is the constituent which takes the women's partner to the status of her husband. Marriage means a marriage in the eye of law. Thus, without a legal marriage, if a man becomes a woman's partner, he will not be covered by the term 'husband' for the purpose of Section 498(A) of IPC.”

The petitioner has approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings lodged against him by the woman who was his live-in partner. The allegation was that the petitioner mentally and physically harassed the woman from March 2023 to August 2023 while they were having a live-in relationship.

The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship between the petitioner and complainant was a live-in relationship and there was no legal marriage between them to attract an offence under Section 498A by relying upon Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala (2017) and Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2023).

The Court referred to Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002), where the Apex Court laid down that valid marital relationship must be there for prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC.

The Court observed that to attract an offence under Section 498A, offence of cruelty must be committed by husband or relatives of husband. It stated that a man who was a woman's partner without legal marriage cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the petitioner would not come under the term 'husband' under Section 498A of the IPC since they were not legally wedded.

The Court thus allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates T.Madhu, C.R.Saradamani, Renjish S. Menon, Vrinda T.S., Aiswarya Jayapal

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sanal P Raj

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 429

Case Title: X v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2654 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Order