Marrying Another Woman Without Wife's Consent Constitutes Cruelty U/S 498-A IPC: Bombay High Court Reiterates

"Marrying another woman by the husband during existence of his first marriage is something which is most likely to cause trauma and grave injury to the mental health of the first wife, unless it has been done with the consent of the first wife. If the act of performance of second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage is not interpreted as amounting to cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC, it would frustrate the legislative intent to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relative of her husband and, therefore, that interpretation has to be adopted which sub-serves the object sought to be achieved by the Legislation", the court held.

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur refused to quash an FIR against a man and his family members for cruelty to his wife.

The FIR was for offences under sections 376(2)(n) (rape repeatedly on the same woman), 377 (unnatural offences), 498-A (cruelty by husband or husband's relative), 494 (marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife), 294 (obscene acts), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The accused approached the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR.

The court perused the FIR and noted that all applicants prima facie treated the woman with severe cruelty. Her husband forcibly committed repeated acts of sexual intercourse with her even when she was pregnant, resulting in a miscarriage. The court said that the husband prima facie behaved in a 'savage' manner.

The court also noted that prima facie all the family members had encouraged and instigated the man's cruel behaviour towards his wife. The court said that prima facie, all relatives of the husband i.e., all applicants meted out cruel treatment to the wife.

The court further noted that the man married another woman with the active aid and assistance of his relatives. This amounts to cruelty and prima facie, breach of the trust of his second as well as his first wife, the court stated.

The court noted that prima facie, the man told the second woman that his wife had died. His parents, siblings, and aunt supported this narrative, the court noted.

Advocate Manju M. Ghatode for the applicants argued that the allegation of second marriage was hearsay as his wife had heard it from someone else.

The court stated that it is admissible evidence now since the second woman in her statement confirmed that the applicant induced her to marry him.

Ghatode contended that it was the responsibility of the second woman to not trust the man and first know about him by making enquiry about his character, background etc. The court considered this argument 'outlandish' and rejected it.

"In India marriage is considered to be a sacrament wherein each of the parties to marriage is expected to act honestly and remain faithful to each other. They must not suppress from each other any material facts which may have a bearing upon the marital bond. It is only when they conduct themselves in a clean and faithful manner that a bond of trust, love and affection is forged between them. No marriage can remain a sacrament, if parties to the marriage do not come clean about their past and do not trust, respect and love each other", the court observed.

The court did not find any inadequacy or lacuna in the police investigation.

The court held that the attempts of the applicants to invoke inherent power of court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, it imposed exemplary costs of Rs 25000 on the applicants.

Case no. – Criminal Application (APL) No. 1287/2022

Case Title – Atul S/o Raju Dongre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 490