Introduction
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code applies even when a marriage is void or voidable, and even when the couple lives in a relationship that resembles marriage. The court said that the focus must remain on whether cruelty occurred, not on the technical legality of the marriage.
Facts Of The Case
The case began when the complainant said she married the petitioner in 2010 through Hindu rites. They lived together in Bengaluru as husband and wife and later shifted to Shivamogga where the petitioner worked. The complainant stated that in 2016, after visiting her parents, she returned to find the house empty. She said the petitioner and his family had taken all her belongings. She also suffered burns on her left leg after kerosene was allegedly poured on her and she was set on fire. She filed FIRs under Section 498A, Section 307 for attempt to murder, and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioner asked the High Court to quash the FIR. He argued that he was already married, so the second marriage with the complainant was void. He claimed that because the marriage was invalid, she could not file a case for cruelty under Section 498A. He said the relationship was only a live-in arrangement.
What
Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected this argument. The court held that the couple lived as husband and wife and carried out social and domestic roles like any married pair. The judge said the law must look at the substance of the relationship. If a man convinces a woman she is legally married and then subjects her to cruelty, he cannot escape liability by claiming the marriage was void.
The court added that accepting such a defence would encourage exploitation. It would allow men to take advantage of women under the pretext of invalid marriages and avoid punishment under Section 498A. The purpose of Section 498A is to protect women from cruelty in relationships that resemble marriage, not just legally perfect marriages.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implications
The court dismissed the petition and allowed the case to continue. The ruling has wide implications. It strengthens protection for women who are misled into believing they are legally married. It ensures that women in live-in relationships or void marriages can still seek justice for cruelty. The judgment confirms that the law must be interpreted to prevent abuse rather than allow offenders to escape on technical grounds.
