Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships

"A man who induces a woman into a marriage—void or otherwise—cannot seek refuge behind the illegality of such a marriage to escape prosecution under Section 498A IPC" – In a pivotal decision impacting prosecutions under Section 498A IPC, the Karnataka High Court dismissed two criminal petitions seeking to quash proceedings initiated by a woman who had been allegedly deceived into a marital relationship and later subjected to cruelty, dowry harassment, and even an attempt to murder. The Court held that even void or voidable marriages, as well as live-in relationships bearing the "trappings of marriage," can attract criminal liability under Section 498A.

The decision was rendered by Justice Suraj Govindaraj in the combined hearing of Criminal Petition No. 8134 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No. 9412 of 2021, where the petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no legally valid marriage between the complainant (Respondent No.2) and the primary accused, since he was already married to another woman at the time of the alleged second marriage.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that legal technicalities cannot be used as a shield by those who exploit women through deceit and cruelty under the guise of marital relationships.

"Section 498A IPC Encompasses Even Void or Deceptive Marriages That Bear Marital Characteristics"

Respondent No.2 alleged that she had married Petitioner No.1 in 2010 in a Hindu ceremony, unaware that he was already married. After years of cohabitation and alleged acts of mental and physical harassment, dowry demands, and an attempt to set her on fire, she filed complaints under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 307, 494 r/w 149 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The petitioners contended that the second marriage was void ab initio due to the subsistence of an earlier marriage and that no prosecution under Section 498A could lie, as that section applied only to valid marriages.

Justice Govindaraj disagreed emphatically, holding that: “Section 498A IPC is a socially beneficial and remedial provision. Its objective would be defeated if a man, by committing fraud upon a woman and inducing her into a marital arrangement, is then permitted to escape criminal liability by pleading the invalidity of such marriage.”

Citing the need for a purposive interpretation, the Court held that the term “husband” in Section 498A must be liberally construed to include:

• Men in void or voidable marriages, and

• Those in relationships in the nature of marriage (live-in relationships),
  if the relationship bore the trappings of a marriage and the complainant was subjected to cruelty.

The Court noted:

“The test is not merely whether the marriage is valid in law, but whether the relationship has been abused in a manner that the section seeks to prevent.”

Deceptive Cohabitation Can Attract 498A IPC Even Without Legal Nuptials

The judgment is particularly significant for its expansive reading of the term “husband” under Section 498A IPC. The Court held:

“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.”

“To allow such a defence would be to place a premium on fraud and misrepresentation, especially when the woman believed the marriage to be real and lived accordingly.”

Justice Govindaraj further clarified that even assuming the relationship was a live-in arrangement, such relationships fall within the protective scope of Section 498A if the essential elements of cruelty, as defined in the section, are made out.

Parallel Proceedings in 498A Not Permissible: Court Transfers Case to Prevent Conflicting Verdicts

An important procedural issue was also resolved. The accused was facing two separate proceedings under Section 498A — one in Shivamogga and another in Bengaluru, both arising from events involving the same complainant and overlapping factual backgrounds.

Holding that simultaneous trials for the same offence in different courts would be contrary to justice and procedural fairness, the Court ruled:

“Permitting parallel trials under Section 498A in different fora would lead to conflicting judgments.”

Accordingly, the Court transferred CC No. 630/2019 pending before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, to the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, to be tried jointly with CC No. 28129/2023.

This ensures procedural consolidation and judicial efficiency, while protecting the rights of both the accused and the complainant.

Statement by Surviving Complainant Not a Dying Declaration — Procedural Objections Rejected

The petitioners also challenged the admissibility of the complainant’s statement, arguing that since it was recorded by a head constable at the hospital without a doctor’s presence, it could not be treated as a dying declaration, and procedural lapses like improper MLC (Medico-Legal Case) registration invalidated the prosecution.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court held: “The complainant is alive and actively pursuing prosecution. Therefore, the statement is not a dying declaration but a regular witness statement whose evidentiary value must be tested at trial.”

“The test of admissibility applicable to a dying declaration arises only when the maker of the statement has died. Importing those standards into a living witness’s statement is legally misconceived.”

“Such procedural objections cannot be used to scuttle a prosecution at the threshold under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially where the allegations are grave and triable.”

Grave Allegations Require Full Trial – No Interference Warranted Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The High Court concluded by affirming the serious nature of the allegations, including dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and attempt to commit murder. It held that these accusations deserved a full trial, and the High Court would not quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

“Allegations are serious and require full trial. No grounds made out for interference. Petitions dismissed.”

The petitions were accordingly dismissed, and the Court directed the transfer of the Shivamogga case to the Bengaluru Court for a joint trial.

Date of Decision: November 18, 2025