Bengaluru – The Karnataka High Court has made a key decision that helps women facing abuse in relationships that look like marriages but aren't legally valid. On November 18, Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed two petitions from a doctor and his family. They wanted to quash criminal cases against them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a wife. The court said this law applies even if the marriage is void – meaning it never legally existed – or if it's a live-in relationship that acts like a marriage. This ruling focuses on protecting women from harm, no matter the technical details of the relationship.
The case involves a woman who says she married the main petitioner, a 47-year-old cardiologist, in 2010. She claims he hid the fact that he was already married to another woman and had a daughter. After their wedding, she says her family gave gold, silver, and cash as dowry. But soon, she faced mental and physical abuse over more demands for money and gifts. Things got worse in September 2016 in Bengaluru.
She says the doctor and his family argued with her about his secret first marriage. During the fight, they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, trying to kill her. She suffered burns on her left leg but was saved by two strangers who called the police. Her statement at KC General Hospital led to police filing a case under Sections 498A (cruelty), 307 (attempt to murder), and laws against dowry demands.
This story spans two cities and two courtrooms, showing how family disputes can lead to separate legal fights. In August 2016, the woman went to her parents' home in Bengaluru for medical care. When she returned to their rented house in Shivamogga, it was empty. She says the doctor and his family had taken all their things and left with the landlord's help. This started a theft case (Crime No. 383/2016) under Section 380 of the IPC. Later, police added Section 498A after hearing about the dowry abuse. That case is now CC No. 630/2019 in Shivamogga's III Additional Civil Judge court.
At the same time, the fire attack in Bengaluru led to another case at Vijayanagar Police Station (Crime No. 450/2016). Police added charges like Section 494 (bigamy, or marrying again while still wed), 504 (insulting someone), and 506 (threats). It's now CC No. 28129/2023 in Bengaluru's XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court. The doctor, his 79-year-old mother, and two other relatives filed petitions to quash both cases. They said there was no real marriage, so Section 498A couldn't apply. They also pointed to earlier complaints by the woman from 2013 to 2015, calling them false attempts to harass them.
The case involves a woman who says she married the 47-year-old doctor in 2010, unaware of his prior marriage and daughter. She alleges her family gave dowry items, followed by abuse and a 2016 attempt to burn her alive in Bengaluru during a fight over his secret.
Represented by advocates A.N. Radhakrishna and Harsha Kumar Gowda H.R., the petitioners mounted a multi-pronged attack, asserting that without a valid marriage, no "husband-relative" dynamic existed to invoke Section 498A. They highlighted the accused's prior marriage to Naveena, arguing the subsequent union was void ab initio under Hindu law, at best a live-in arrangement ineligible for dowry cruelty protections. Additional grounds included procedural lapses in recording the complainant's hospital statement, allegedly done by a head constable without a doctor's presence, failing dying declaration standards under the Indian Evidence Act, and the impropriety of parallel prosecutions for the same offense in Shivamogga and Bengaluru.
The state, through HCGP M.R. Patil, defended the proceedings' integrity, noting the Shivamogga case originated from theft but organically incorporated Section 498A via witness statements, while Bengaluru's jurisdiction was apt for the attempt-to-murder incident. The HCGP proposed consolidating trials to avoid conflicting verdicts, acknowledging Section 498A's commonality but distinguishing the localized gravity of the fire-setting assault.
Delving into statutory interpretation, Justice Govindaraj rejected the narrow literal reading of "husband" in Section 498A, which penalizes cruelty, defined as willful conduct endangering life or health, or harassment for dowry, by a husband or his relatives. The court emphasized the provision's remedial purpose: deterring physical/mental abuse and curbing dowry evils to safeguard women's dignity.
"A careful perusal of the above statutory provision reveals that the legislative intent underlying Section 498A IPC is to protect a woman from cruelty at the hands of her husband or his relatives," the judgment states, underscoring its social beneficial design. Dismissing the petitioners' technical plea, the court observed: "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 ruling extends Section 498A to "void or voidable marriage, as also to a live-in relationship which bears the attributes of marriage," provided cruelty ingredients are met. Here, the couple's prolonged cohabitation, mutual representations as spouses, and dowry exchanges fulfilled this threshold. "The facts, as they stand, clearly show that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 lived together in a relationship having all the trappings of a marital union," the court noted, refusing to let the accused "take advantage of his own wrong" through deception.
On evidentiary challenges, the bench clarified that the hospital statement, recorded amid burn injuries, is an ordinary witness account since the complainant survived, not a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (now Section 26(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
"The admissibility of a statement as a dying declaration arises only when the maker of the statement has died... In the present case, Respondent No.2 has survived; she continues to be alive and is actively prosecuting the matter," Justice Govindaraj ruled, deeming procedural quibbles trial-stage issues, not grounds for preemptive quashing.
Addressing the dual-prosecution concern, the court agreed with the petitioners that litigating Section 498A in separate fora risked inconsistent outcomes. "There is substance in the said submission... inasmuch as it being categorical that the offence under Section 498A is being tried in both matters, there is a possibility of conflicting judgments being rendered by two different courts," the judgment acknowledges. To remedy this, CC No. 630/2019 from Shivamogga was transferred to the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru for joint trial with CC No. 28129/2023, ensuring a cohesive adjudication.
The petitions were dismissed, with proceedings directed to continue per law. "Whether the conduct of the Petitioner actually constitutes cruelty within the meaning of the Section is a matter that would necessarily have to be determined upon appreciation of evidence at the stage of trial," the court cautioned, preserving the trial judge's discretion.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.