E-Paper
Offence of cruelty to wife inapplicable in live-in relationship: Kerala High Court
Justice Sophy Thomas said that for a woman to seek redressal under Section 498A, she should be married to a man who was accused of cruelty.
The Kerala High Court recently observed that punishments relating to cruelty to a married woman, under Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 498A, cannot be applied to or invoked by women in live-in relationships.
Justice Sophy Thomas said that for a woman to seek redressal under Section 498A, she should be married to a man who was accused of cruelty or to a man whose family members were accused of cruelty.
As quoted by Bar and Bench, Justice Thomas said, “When there is some form of marriage either religious or customary which has the colour of a legal marriage, then also, the woman can seek protection under Section 498A of IPC though later, for some reason ... that marriage is found to be invalid in the eye of law. But, when there was no solemnisation of marriage at all, and only live in relationship on the basis of a marriage agreement, then the woman cannot seek shelter under Section 498A of IPC, saying that they were holding out to the society as man and wife by their long cohabitation,”
The court's observation came as it was ruling on the conviction and sentence that was imposed on a man and his family under IPC sections 498A and 306 (abetment of suicide) for the death of a woman in 1997.
The woman died by setting herself on fire allegedly due to cruelty and harassment faced by her after eloping with the accused man, Bar and Bench reported.
A sessions court in 1998 convicted and sentenced the man along with his parents and brother as the woman died by suicide a few months after the couple began living together.
The accused challenged the verdict in 2000 and an appellate court partly allowed appeals that the man and his family filed. However, the man also filed an appeal in the Kerala High Court so they could be “honourably acquitted” in the case, Bar and Bench stated.
On October 12 this year, the high court allowed the plea and overturned the findings of guilt.
The court also noted that the couple wasn't legally married and were living together on the basis of a “marriage agreement” which did not have any legal legitimacy. It said that therefore the session court's findings were wrong since the couple wasn't married.
The High Court said, “In the case on hand, since the marriage between the 1st revision petitioner and deceased was not solemnized, and they started living together on the basis of a marriage agreement, which has no legal sanctity in the eye of the law, they have to be treated as persons in live-in-relation, and they were not husband and wife, in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.”
The conviction of the accused under suicide abetment was also dismissed as the court noted that the woman did not level any allegations against the man or his family in her dying declaration, Bar and Bench said.
The accused's parents passed away while the case was pending. The court also observed that the charges against the parents stood abated.
KP Balagopal represented the revision petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Nima Jacob represented the state.
