The Karnataka High Court ruled that the law against marital cruelty also applies to live-in relationships. It clarified that the term ‘husband’ under Section 498A of the IPC includes partners in relationships with marital traits.
The Karnataka High Court determined that a man may still face prosecution for marital cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if a woman is mistreated after being misled into believing she is married to him, even if the marriage is not legally recognized.
The Court clarified that Section 498A IPC (now replaced by Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023) applies not just to legally valid marriages but also to relationships that exhibit marital characteristics.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, ruled,
“The expression ‘husband’ in Section 498A IPC is not confined to a man in a legally valid marriage, but extends to one who enters into a marital relationship which is void or voidable, as also to a live-in relationship which bears the attributes of marriage, so long as the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in the explanation to the section are satisfied,”
The case originated from petitions filed by a man and his family against ongoing criminal proceedings stemming from complaints by his partner. The complainant alleged that she experienced marital cruelty and faced demands for dowry.
She also accused the accused of attempting to burn her after dousing her with kerosene.
According to the case details, the complainant believed she married the petitioner in 2010 and cohabited with him in different locations.
In 2016, after finding their shared residence vacated, she filed a criminal complaint in Shivamogga. The police initially recorded a theft complaint but later included Section 498A based on additional statements.
In a separate incident that same year in Bengaluru, a statement taken at a hospital mentioned dowry-related harassment and an attempted burning after kerosene was poured on her.
The Bengaluru police subsequently registered a case citing offences under Sections 498A, 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (insult to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 494 of the IPC, as well as provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In his defense, the complainant’s partner contended that she could not invoke Section 498A IPC, asserting that their relationship lacked the validity of marriage and was merely a live-in arrangement.
He also noted that he was married to another woman and had a daughter from that marriage. The High Court rejected these arguments.
The Court held,
“The term ‘husband’ in Section 498A must be given a purposive and expansive construction, and the protection afforded by the provision cannot be denied merely on the technical ground of a void marriage. Where a man induces a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him, and thereafter subjects her to cruelty, such a man cannot be permitted to evade criminal responsibility on the plea that no valid marriage existed in law,”
The Court concluded that Section 498A IPC can be invoked when a woman misled into believing she was in a married relationship suffers cruelty from her partner. The judge stressed that the law should be interpreted to advance the fight against the social evil of marital cruelty.
The Court stated,
“It is well settled that a penal provision enacted to remedy a social evil must be interpreted in a manner that advances the object of the legislation rather than in a manner that defeats it. The Court cannot permit the accused to take advantage of his own wrong, particularly where he himself has acted in deceit and bad faith to induce Respondent No.2 (complainant) into a relationship clothed with the appearance of marriage,”
As a result, the Court declined to halt the criminal trials against the accused petitioners. Noting that two complaints were pending in separate trial courts, it directed that both cases be heard together by a trial court in Bengaluru.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Harsha Kumar Gowda HR and AN Radhakrishna, while the State was represented by High Court Government Pleader MR Patil.
The complainant was represented by advocates Santhosh Kumar MB and Udaya Prakash Muliya.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mental Cruelty