Latest Judgement

1. The term “husband” in S. 498A should be given a purposive construction to include persons who enter into a marital relationship and, under the guise of “husband”, subject women to cruelty—even if the marriage is later declared invalid entirely.
2. At the time of the alleged offences, the marriage had not been declared null and void (only in 2022). Thus, the petitioner could not avoid liability on a later-declared technical invalidity ground.
3. Nevertheless, the Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet for want of a prima facie case: the allegations were vague, omnibus, and lacked specifics (e.g., dates, nature of dowry, entrustment).
   Thus, while affirming the theoretical reach of § 498A to marriages later declared invalid, the Court underscored the threshold of prima facie proof required to sustain proceedings.

1. STATUTE
   Indian Penal Code S. 498A reads:
   “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment….”
   The statutory language thus defines the actor (“husband or relative of husband”) and conduct (“cruelty”). The term “marriage” is not defined in the IPC; hence interpretation of “husband” is critical.
2. Leading Precedent: Reema Aggarwal
   In Reema Aggarwal, the Supreme Court held that in the context of Sections 304B and 498A IPC the term “husband” should not be construed in an overly technical manner so as to defeat the legislative intent of safeguarding women from cruelty and dowry harassment. In particular:
   “It would be appropriate to construe the expression ‘husband’ to cover a person who enters into a marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty … whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498‐A and 304‐B IPC.”
   The Court reasoned that whereas the offence of bigamy under S. 494 IPC depends on a valid marriage, the evil sought to be addressed by S. 498A/304B lies in cruelty and dowry-demand in a relationship based on husband-wife façade. The Court emphasised that a rigid technical interpretation would undermine the mischief of the statute.
   Post Reema Aggarwal, a number of High Courts have applied this purposive construction to hold that marital cruelty offences may apply even in cases of void or voidable marriages. See e.g., Madhya Pradesh High Court in Suman Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh.
   However, some courts have held that where there is no solemnisation or even cohabitation, the statute cannot apply. See e.g., Kerala High Court where a mere live-in relationship without any marriage solemnisation did not attract S. 498A.
3. EMERGING DISTINCTION: VALID MARRIAGE VS RELATIONSHIP
   Thus, the legal landscape over the past two decades has seen a tension between: (i) a strict requirement of valid marriage (on one line) and (ii) a functional, purposive approach whereby relationship and assumption of husband-wife role may suffice (on the other line). The Om Saran Gupta decision falls clearly on the purposive side, reinforcing the broader interpretation.

1. THE COURT’S KEY LEGAL HOLDING
   The Delhi High Court restated the legal proposition in Reema Aggarwal and applied it to the facts: because the parties had entered into a matrimonial ceremony, lived as husband and wife, and the alleged cruelty occurred during the subsistence of that relationship before the declaration of nullity, S. 498A could not be evaded by showing later invalidity of the marriage.
   The Court held:
   “Considering the purposive interpretation of the definition of the Husband to cover persons who enter into marital relationships, even if their marriage is subsequently declared technically invalid, Section 498A IPC would still be applicable.”
   Hence the technical ground of invalid marriage (declared in 2022) was held to be no defence to the application of S. 498A for acts allegedly committed earlier.
2. FACTUAL APPLICATION AND LIMITING FACTORS
   Nevertheless, the Court exercised its inherent powers under S. 482 CrPC and quashed the FIR/chargesheet because the specific allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty under S. 498A. The court found:
   1. The complaint alleged jewellery worth Rs 40 lakh but lacked details of entrustment or misappropriation (which was material to alleged S. 406 IPC).
   2. The allegations of cruelty were general and omnibus without dates, particulars, or specific acts against the complainant.
   3. This illustrates that while the door to application of S. 498A is wide, sustainable prosecution still demands cogent pleading and evidence of the statutory ingredient of cruelty.
3. DOCTRINAL UNDERPINNINGS
   1. Legislative Mis­chief and Purposive Construction: The Court emphasised that the primary objective of S. 498A is protective, not merely punitive. To allow a husband to escape liability simply because his marriage was later declared void would frustrate the object of the statute.
   2. Temporal Focus: The decision emphasises that the status at the time of alleged acts (cohabitation as husband/wife) is relevant, not a later determination of legal marriage status.
   3. Interpretation of “Husband”: The Court reaffirmed that “husband” covers persons who assume the role of husband in substance, even if legal formal requirements are imperfect or later challenged.
   4. Safeguard Against Technical Escape: The judgment militates against technical defences based on date of divorce decree or family-court nullity order when cruelty allegations pre-date that event.
4. CRITIQUE AND LIMITATIONS
   While the judgment is commendable in reinforcing the protective aim of S. 498A, several critiques arise:
   1. Risk of Over-extension: What remains unclear is the outer boundary of the term “husband”. If applied too broadly, there is a risk of erstwhile relationships being converted into criminal liability retrospectively, even without formal marriage.
   2. Validity vs Perception: The decision focuses on cohabitation as husband/wife and ceremony context, but leaves ambiguous how strictly the ceremony must be or how long the cohabitation must be to attract S. 498A.
   3. Impact on Legal Certainty: From a defence perspective, accused persons may find themselves in uncertainty if the legality of their marriage is in dispute, yet the Court holds they cannot avoid liability simply by later nullity.
   4. Prima Facie Filtering: The Court rightly emphasised the need for specific allegations and evidence of cruelty, which is good. But the decision may signal that mere cohabitation and ceremony is sufficient to trigger S. 498A, which expands prosecutorial domain.
   5. Policy Implication: Given concerns of misuse of S. 498A (as noted by Delhi High Court in other decisions) the widening of scope must be balanced with safeguards against false or frivolous complaints.

This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.