Introduction
The Calcutta High Court recently considered this question in Sk. Azharuddin @ Akash v. State of West Bengal & Anr. The Court refused to quash proceedings under Sections 498A, 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the disputed nature of the relationship could not be conclusively determined at the quashing stage. The allegations and material collected during investigation required consideration at trial.
The decision comes shortly after the Supreme Court’s important judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka, where the Court held that Section 498A can apply to a live-in relationship that qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage, subject to the conditions laid down by the Court, including the existence of an intention to marry.
What Was the Calcutta High Court Case About?
The case arose from a complaint by a woman who alleged that she had entered into a relationship with the accused and lived with him as his wife.
According to the allegations, the parties met after the complainant’s separation from her earlier husband. She alleged that the accused represented himself as unmarried, persuaded her to convert to Islam and subsequently underwent a Muslim marriage ceremony with her in July 2020.
She further alleged that they lived together as husband and wife in rented accommodation. She later claimed that she discovered that the accused was already married and that his wife was pregnant.
The complaint alleged that after she confronted him, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was eventually assaulted and driven out of the shared residence.
The investigation also included statements from witnesses concerning the parties’ cohabitation. A chargesheet was subsequently filed under Sections 498A, 420 and 384 of the IPC.
What Was the Accused’s Argument?
The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. A central part of the challenge concerned the alleged marriage and the complainant’s status. The petitioner argued that there was no legally valid marriage capable of creating the relationship contemplated by Section 498A.
The validity of the alleged marriage, the parties’ previous marital status and the circumstances in which they began living together were therefore placed before the High Court.
The question was whether those disputed issues could be used to terminate the criminal proceedings before the evidence was tested at trial.
Why Did the High Court Refuse to Quash the Case?
The High Court treated the disputed questions as matters requiring evidence. At the quashing stage, the Court does not conduct a full trial or determine whether the prosecution allegations will ultimately be proved. Its role is limited to examining whether the allegations and material on record disclose sufficient grounds for the criminal proceedings to continue.
The Court therefore declined to decide the disputed factual questions conclusively at that stage. Since the investigation had produced prima facie material and a chargesheet had been filed, the Court found no sufficient ground to terminate the proceedings at the threshold.
What Did the Supreme Court Recently Say About Section 498A and Live-In Relationships?
The legal background becomes particularly important because of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka.
The Supreme Court considered whether a man in a live-in relationship could be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Court held that Section 498A can extend to live-in relationships that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage, provided the conditions identified by the Court are satisfied. The Court specifically stated that the protected category involves consenting adults and requires intent to marry as an intrinsic part of the relationship.
The Supreme Court also made clear that not every live-in relationship automatically falls within Section 498A.
The distinction matters because a live-in relationship is a broader category, while a relationship in the nature of marriage has additional characteristics. The Court drew upon earlier jurisprudence concerning the concept of a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Does an Invalid Marriage Automatically Defeat a Section 498A Case?
The answer is more nuanced than simply saying that an invalid marriage creates or removes criminal liability.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dr. Lokesh B.H. recognises that the protective purpose of Section 498A cannot necessarily be defeated merely because the relationship does not satisfy every requirement of a legally valid marriage.
The Court expressly held that the word “husband” in Section 498A can receive a purposive interpretation in cases involving relationships in the nature of marriage, subject to the conditions laid down in the judgment.
Earlier, in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, the Supreme Court had also considered the application of Section 498A in circumstances involving a marriage that was legally defective.
The principle emerging from these cases is not that every defective or informal relationship attracts Section 498A. Rather, courts examine the substance of the relationship and whether the statutory requirements of cruelty are satisfied.
Does Every Live-In Relationship Attract Section 498A?
The Supreme Court specifically limited its ruling to live-in relationships that qualify as relationships in the nature of marriage. It further required the relationship to be between consenting adults and identified intent to marry as an intrinsic element.
Therefore, simply living together does not automatically create liability under Section 498A. The nature of the relationship, the parties’ conduct, their intention, the circumstances of their cohabitation and the allegations of cruelty all remain relevant.
What Does the Calcutta HC Judgment Actually Decide?
The Calcutta High Court’s decision should also be understood within the limited context of a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court did not conduct a trial and did not determine whether the allegations of cruelty were ultimately proved.
Instead, it held that the disputed factual questions surrounding the relationship and alleged marriage could not be conclusively decided at the preliminary stage to terminate the prosecution. The trial court was therefore permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
This makes the judgment significant without overstating its effect. It does not mean that every person in an invalid marriage or live-in relationship will automatically be prosecuted or convicted under Section 498A.
What Other Criminal Provisions Can Become Relevant?
The facts of such cases can potentially involve offences beyond cruelty, depending on the allegations and evidence. In the Calcutta case, the chargesheet also invoked Sections 420 and 384 of the IPC, concerning cheating and extortion respectively. Because the alleged conduct occurred in 2022, the IPC provisions applied to the case.
For offences committed after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) came into force on 1 July 2024, the corresponding provisions of the BNS must be considered.
Section 85 of the BNS deals with cruelty by a husband or relative of a husband, while Section 86 defines cruelty for that provision.
The BNS also contains specific provisions dealing with situations involving deception concerning marriage, remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse and fraudulent marriage ceremonies. The applicability of any particular provision depends on the precise facts and the elements of the offence.
What About the Domestic Violence Act?
Criminal proceedings under Section 498A and remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are legally distinct.
The Domestic Violence Act recognises a domestic relationship, including certain relationships in the nature of marriage, and provides civil remedies such as protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief and compensation.
However, not every live-in relationship automatically qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Act. The Supreme Court has previously emphasised that the statutory requirements must be satisfied.
Therefore, the existence of a disputed or invalid marriage does not automatically answer every question under either Section 498A or the Domestic Violence Act.
What Is the Larger Legal Principle?
The important principle is that the validity of a marriage and the existence of alleged cruelty are not necessarily the same legal question.
A person facing criminal proceedings cannot always obtain quashing merely by raising a disputed factual question about whether the underlying relationship constituted a legally valid marriage.
At the same time, the courts do not treat every relationship as a marriage. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling specifically places conditions on extending Section 498A to relationships in the nature of marriage.
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling therefore fits into a developing area of Indian criminal law: determining how far protective provisions designed around marriage can operate when the relationship does not fit neatly within the traditional legal definition of marriage.
Conclusion
No valid marriage does not automatically mean that a cruelty prosecution must end at the threshold. The Calcutta High Court’s decision shows that where the nature of the relationship, the alleged marriage and the allegations of cruelty involve disputed questions of fact, those issues may need to be examined through evidence rather than decided summarily at the quashing stage.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dr. Lokesh B.H. adds another important layer by recognising that Section 498A can protect women in certain relationships in the nature of marriage, while making clear that not every live-in relationship qualifies and that the relationship must satisfy the conditions identified by the Court.
