The Allahabad High Court dismissed a man’s plea challenging a previous order in a dowry death case involving his ‘live-in’ partner. The court found no merit in his arguments and upheld the original decision. The man sought relief from the charges related to his partner’s death, but the court rejected his plea.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court ruled that in cases of dowry demand or dowry death, it is enough to prove that the victim woman and the accused man were “living as husband and wife at the relevant time.”
Justice Raj Beer Singh made this observation while dismissing a petition that challenged an order from a Prayagraj sessions court. The order had rejected the applicant’s request for discharge in a dowry death case. The petitioner accused of being in a live-in relationship with the deceased woman.
Read Also: Madhya Pradesh HC: Withholding Food Over Unmet Dowry is Cruelty
The petition argued that the order contrary to the facts and law, and should therefore be overturned.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the deceased woman had been married to another man, Rohit Yadav, and there was no clear evidence showing she had divorced him. It further claimed that the woman later entered into a live-in relationship with the accused, but they had not formally married.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the deceased was not legally married to the applicant, no prima facie case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could be established.
However, the additional government advocate contested this claim, stating that the FIR indicated the woman was divorced by Rohit Yadav after their marriage, and subsequently married the applicant in court. It was also alleged that the deceased had been harassed by the accused over dowry demands.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea, observing,
“In order to attract the provisions of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and the accused man were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.”
The court further noted,
“Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the deceased did not fall within the ambit of a legally-wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that the applicant and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife during the relevant time.”
Read Also: District Judge’s Dowry Demand & Trying to Influence Junior Judge | HC Upholds Dismissal
The government counsel informed the court that the victim had committed suicide at the accused’s residence, and the legality of the marriage could only be determined during the trial.
The court concluded,
“In view of the aforesaid facts, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the provisions under Section 304-B of the IPC are not applicable has no merit.”
It also noted that the trial court had considered all relevant aspects and had rejected the discharge application with a well-reasoned order.