The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that the provisions of the offence under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are attracted even in cases of a void or voidable marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, provided the ingredients of the offence are otherwise established.
“…the expression ‘husband’ in Section 498A IPC is not confined to a man in a legally valid marriage, but extends to one who enters into a marital relationship which is void or voidable, as also to a live-in relationship which bears the attributes of marriage, so long as the essential ingredients of cruelty as defined in the explanation to the section are satisfied,” the court said.
Live-in relationship
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while rejecting a man’s petition challenging criminal cases registered based on a complaint of a woman, with whom he had only live-in relationship, who alleged that he had subjected her to cruelty besides demanding dowry. The petitioner had claimed that he is legally married to another woman and not the complaint, and hence offence under Section 498A cannot be invoked against him on the complaint of the woman whom he had not married legally.
“If the petitioner’s submission were to be accepted, it would produce a manifestly unjust and anomalous result — namely, that a man who deceives a woman into a void marriage by concealing his earlier marriage could then escape criminal liability under Section 498A merely because the relationship lacks legal validity. Such a position would not only defeat the purpose of the enactment but also encourage fraud and exploitation of women under the guise of invalid marital relationships. The courts cannot countenance such a perverse consequence,” the court observed.
No evading reposibility
When 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 court said.
In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner and the complainant lived together in a relationship having all the trappings of a marital union; and they cohabited, represented themselves as husband and wife, and performed domestic and social obligations typically associated with marriage attracting the protective umbrella of Section 498A.
Published – November 26, 2025 10:25 pm IST
