The Kerala High Court recently affirmed that women in unions with the 'color of a legal marriage' under customary or religious law are also entitled to protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses cruelty toward married women.
The bench of Justice Sophy Thomas made this observation while hearing a case in which a man and his family were accused of driving his 18-year-old wife to suicide shortly after their nikah (Muslim marriage contract).
The accused contended that the marriage in question did not meet the criteria of a valid legal marriage, arguing that Section 498A could not apply in this case. They claimed that only a "legally wedded wife" could seek protection under the provision.
However, the Court rejected this argument. Referring to a previous High Court decision in Narayanan v. State of Kerala, it concluded that the woman in such a marriage, even if not legally wedded, could still claim the protections granted under Section 498A.
"If there was some form of marriage, religious or customary, which has the colour of a legal marriage, then also the woman can seek protection under Section 498A, though later, for some reason, that marriage is found to be invalid in the eye of law."
The Court recently referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & Ors., emphasizing that the legality of a marital relationship does not prevent the invocation of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), provided that cruelty is proven. This decision came in an appeal involving four individuals (the husband and in-laws of a deceased woman), who had been convicted by a trial court under Section 498A IPC for driving an 18-year-old woman to suicide in 2002.
The woman had converted from Hinduism to Islam and married the first accused (her husband) after their relationship was discovered by both families. The relationship came to light when the woman was under 18. Religious leaders from both communities intervened, and it was decided that the woman would convert and marry the first accused once she turned 18.
After completing her religious education, a nikah was performed when the woman reached the legal age. The prosecution alleged that following the nikah, the woman was subjected to mental and physical abuse, including dowry-related harassment, ultimately leading her to take her life. The accused were initially charged under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death), and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. However, the trial court acquitted them of Sections 304B and 306 due to insufficient evidence, convicting them under Section 498A and sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment with fines.
The appellants challenged the conviction before the Kerala High Court, arguing that there was no legally valid marriage, as it was not registered under secular law but was based on a marriage agreement. The Court rejected this argument, ruling that a union that appears to be a legal marriage can still entitle the woman to protection under Section 498A IPC, even if the marriage is later invalidated on grounds like age, mental status, religion, or existing marriage.
The Court stated that such unions should be treated as valid unless one party challenges them and they are declared void on valid grounds. In this case, the marriage was never legally contested. The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction, as testimonies from the victim's father, friends, and neighbors corroborated the claims of physical and mental abuse, including dowry demands.
However, considering the offense occurred nearly 22 years ago in 2002, and the husband was only 19 years old at the time, the Court reduced the sentences. The husband and his mother’s sentences were reduced from three years to 1.5 years of imprisonment, along with a ₹25,000 fine each. The father-in-law and brother-in-law received reduced sentences of four months imprisonment, each with a ₹10,000 fine. The Court also ordered ₹50,000 from the fines to be paid as compensation to the victim’s father or legal heirs.
Advocate Babu S. Nair represented the appellants, and Public Prosecutor Seena C represented the State.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy