Void Marriage No Bar to Section 498A: Supreme Court

Brief Facts

The appellant was admitted to a Jalandhar hospital in July 1998 after consuming a poisonous substance. She told the police that she had married the first respondent in January 1998, that it was the second marriage for both, and that he and his parents and brother harassed her for more dowry and forced an acidic substance into her mouth (para 3). They were tried under Sections 307 and 498A IPC. The trial court acquitted them, accepting that Section 498A presupposes a valid marriage, which was not shown because the husband's first marriage was not proved to be dissolved (para 4). The High Court refused the State leave to appeal by a brief order and dismissed her revision (paras 5-6).

Court's Findings

The Court distinguished Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande, a bigamy case: the essence of Section 494 is "marrying" again, whereas Section 498A targets cruelty and Section 304B dowry death, so the words describing the offender can be construed liberally to cover anyone who has undergone some form of marriage and assumed the position of husband (paras 8-9). Strict interpretation of marriage may suit claims to civil or property rights, but not the curbing of a social evil (para 11). Under the Dowry Prohibition Act, dowry covers property given or demanded "at or before or after the marriage" as consideration for it (paras 13-16). Letting a man plead that there was no valid marriage and so no dowry would destroy the purpose of the provisions: "The nomenclature ’dowry’ does not have any magic charm written over it" (para 18). Purposive construction, aided by the mischief rule, applies, and contrary High Court views do not state the correct law (paras 18, 22-23). Whether the offences were made out was a matter for trial, and the High Court had a duty to give reasons when refusing leave (para 27).

Legal Principle

For Sections 498A and 304B IPC, ‘husband’ covers a man who enters into a marital relationship and, under that proclaimed or feigned status, subjects the woman to cruelty or coercion, whatever the legitimacy of the marriage. Penal provisions meant to curb a social evil receive a purposive, not a pedantic, construction (paras 9, 18).

Precedents Relied Upon

Ramnarayan & Ors. v. State of M.P. 1998 (3) Crimes 147 (M.P.)
Not Followed Discussed at ¶ 4, 7, 23
Madhya Pradesh High Court view, relied on by the accused and the trial court, that Section 498A requires a valid marriage; the Court held that High Court views contrary to its own do not lay down the correct law.
Vungarala Yedukondalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 Crl.L.J. 1538 (DB)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7
Cited by the appellant as a High Court view different from the Madhya Pradesh view on who is a husband under Section 498A.
State of Karnataka v. Shivaraj 2000 Crl.L.J 2741
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7
Cited by the appellant as a Karnataka High Court view different from the Madhya Pradesh view on Section 498A.

View all precedents (24)

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 1564
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 8, 9
Relied on by the respondents; a bigamy case requiring a valid, duly solemnised second marriage — distinguished because the thrust of Section 494 is marrying, whereas Sections 498A and 304B target cruelty and dowry death.
Inderun Valungypooly v. Ramaswamy 1869 (13) MIA 141
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Once a marriage in fact is shown, there is a presumption in favour of a marriage in law.
Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty 1881 (6) AC 364
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law presumes a valid marriage until the contrary is clearly proved.
De Thoren v. Attorney General 1876 (1) AC 686
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Followed in Sastry Velaider on the presumption of marriage from cohabitation.
Piers v. Piers L.R.(2) H.L.C. 331
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9
Followed in Sastry Velaider on the presumption of marriage from cohabitation.
Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 135
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 9
Approved Lokhande; a Karewa marriage with a stranger whose ceremonies were not proved, so the presumption from long cohabitation could not be invoked.
Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. AIR 1988 SC 644
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 11
A woman married while the man had a living spouse could not claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; strict interpretation of marriage suits civil claims, not the curbing of a social evil.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr. AIR 1985 SC 628
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12
The wife is the absolute owner of her stridhan property.
State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram AIR 1996 SC 67
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13
After the 1986 amendment, a demand made after the marriage is also part of dowry.
Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu 1979 (2) SCC 34
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 19
Where statutory words are imprecise or bear more than one meaning, the court may look beyond the literal text to the purpose, scheme and consequences of the legislation.
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 SC 1883
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 20
Ambiguous words must be given a rational meaning by examining the Act as a whole and the mischief it was meant to redress.
District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. JT 2001 (6) SC 183
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 21
Statutory construction combines literal and purposive approaches.
Heydon’s case 3 Co Rep 7a 76 ER 637
Applied Discussed at ¶ 22
The mischief rule, pressed into service to avoid the mischief a literal reading would allow.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 661
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22
An instance of this Court applying Heydon’s rule.
Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 1990 SC 781
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22
An instance of this Court applying Heydon’s rule.
P.E.K. Kalliani Amma and Ors. v. K. Devi and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1963
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22
An instance of this Court applying Heydon’s rule.
Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapporji Data Processing Ltd. 2003 (8) Supreme 634
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 22
An instance of this Court applying Heydon’s rule.
Reserve Bank of India etc. etc. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others etc. etc. 1987 (1) SCC 424
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 24
Interpretation depends on text and context; a statute is read as a whole, in the context of its enactment.
Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 155 (CA)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 25
A judge must find the intention of Parliament from the language and the mischief, and iron out the creases.
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. 1996 (4) SCC 596
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26
Purposive interpretation of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh 2003 (8) Supreme 611
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
A High Court refusing leave to appeal against acquittal must indicate reasons; casual or summary disposal is not proper.

Woman in Void Second Marriage Can Invoke Section 498A Against ‘Husband’: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

120 kg Poppy Husk in His Vehicle: Supreme Court Makes Anticipatory Bail Absolute for Registered Owner

Mortgage Papers Allegedly Turned Into Sale Agreement: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in BNS Cheating Case

697 kg Ganja Case: Supreme Court Suspends Sentence on Parity as Co-Accused in Goods Carrier Got Bail