The Patna High Court quashed proceedings against the husband’s relatives, holding that a cruelty case under Section 85 BNS cannot stand when the marriage is void due to a previous marriage. Ruled second marriage without divorce is invalid.
The Patna High Court dismissed criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives, ruling that prosecution for matrimonial cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, is untenable if the marriage is void due to an existing previous marriage.
The Court highlighted that vague and general allegations against in-laws who live separately constitute an abuse of legal processes.
This ruling emerged from a petition filed by the husband’s relatives, seeking to quash a January 3, 2025, order from the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Begusarai.
The Magistrate had taken cognizance and initiated proceedings against them for offenses under Sections 85 (subjecting a woman to cruelty), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1) (causing hurt or grievous hurt), and 191(2) (rioting) of the BNS, 2023.
The prosecution claimed that the complainant married the co-accused (the husband) at a Kali Temple in Begusarai, despite being a divorced woman with a minor son from her previous marriage. She alleged that after marriage, both the husband and his relatives subjected her to cruelty, including caste-related insults and physical violence.
Notably, it was claimed that petitioner no. 2 attempted to strangle her.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of legal processes, asserting that the complaint was based on “vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations,” lacking specific acts of cruelty attributed to the petitioners.
They cited the Supreme Court ruling in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, highlighting the tendency to involve all family members in matrimonial disputes.
Furthermore, the defense contended that the case foundation was flawed since the complainant was still married to another person and no divorce decree had been provided.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025), they argued that the absence of a legally valid marriage made the supposed marriage with the co-accused void ab initio, thus making matrimonial offense charges impossible to sustain.
The State’s counsel supported the contested order, stating that the lower court had duly examined all materials before taking cognizance.
Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra, who delivered the judgment, noted that the allegations against the petitioners were primarily “vague, omnibus, and generalized.”
The Court remarked that the complaint failed to assign any specific role or distinct instance of cruelty to any petitioner and that the absence of detailed particulars is particularly significant in matrimonial disputes, where there is a recognized tendency to implicate entire families.
Regarding the claim against petitioner no. 2 about strangling the complainant, the Court found it to be “conspicuously unsupported by any medical evidence or contemporaneous record.”
This allegation reportedly emerged during the enquiry and was not part of the initial complaint, which raised doubts about its validity.
A key aspect of the judgment pertained to the marriage’s legality. The Court acknowledged the complainant’s admission that she was previously married with a minor child and that no divorce decree had been presented.
Justice Mishra stated,
“In the absence of dissolution of the subsisting marriage, the alleged subsequent marriage with accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab-initio in the eyes of law.”
Referring to Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, the Court concluded,
“Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires the coexistence of two essential ingredients: first, a legally valid marital relationship; and second, cruelty arising out of such relationship. This Court finds that neither of these ingredients is satisfied in the present case.”
The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025), affirming that a legally valid and subsisting marriage is crucial for invoking matrimonial offenses.
Moreover, the Court pointed out that the complainant had been living separately from the petitioners for nearly three years, emphasizing that,
“Cruelty, in the context of matrimonial offences, presupposes a degree of proximity, interaction, or cohabitation that enables harassment or ill-treatment. In the absence of any shared residence or meaningful interaction, the allegation of cruelty by the in-laws becomes inherently improbable.”
The High Court determined that the cognizance order was flawed due to a lack of consideration and that pursuing the criminal proceedings would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.
Applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court ruled that the allegations, even if viewed at face value, did not reveal the essential elements of the alleged offense.
Therefore, the petition was granted, and the January 3, 2025, cognizance order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Begusarai was quashed.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
