Karnataka HC: Woman Misled Into Believing She Was Married Can Pursue 498A Cruelty Case Even in a Live-In Relationship
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a woman can file a case of marital cruelty even if her relationship is not a legally recognised marriage, as long as the relationship has the qualities of a marriage. The Court said that if a woman is tricked into believing she is married and is then subjected to cruelty, the man cannot escape criminal liability.
The Court clarified that the earlier Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023) applies not only to valid marriages but also to relationships that appear to function like a marriage.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the word husband must be understood broadly. It should include a man who enters into a void or voidable marriage or even a live-in relationship that carries the attributes of marriage, as long as cruelty is proved.
The case involved a woman who believed she had married the accused in 2010. She stated that she lived with him at multiple places and was subjected to dowry demands and severe cruelty, including an alleged attempt to burn her after pouring kerosene. Complaints were filed in both Shivamogga and Bengaluru, leading to multiple criminal charges including attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, dowry harassment and bigamy.
In his defence, the man argued that since their relationship was not a valid marriage, Section 498A could not apply. He also claimed he was already married to another woman.
The High Court rejected this argument, holding that a man cannot deceive a woman into believing she is his wife and then claim legal protection by saying the marriage was invalid. The Court emphasised that laws aimed at preventing social evils like marital cruelty must be interpreted in a way that furthers justice, not technicalities.
The Court refused to stop the criminal proceedings against the man and his family. However, since two related cases were pending before different courts, it directed that both matters be tried together in Bengaluru.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Harsha Kumar Gowda HR and AN Radhakrishna. The State was represented by High Court Government Pleader MR Patil. The complainant was represented by advocates Santhosh Kumar MB and Udaya Prakash Muliya.
