The Kerala High court recently reaffirmed that a woman in a union that has the 'colour of a legal marriage' under custom or religious law is also protected under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes cruelty to married women.
Justice Sophy Thomas made the observation while dealing with a case where a man was accused, along with his family, of driving his 18-year-old wife to die by suicide shortly after their nikah (Muslim contract for marriage).
The accused persons argued that the marriage agreement in this case did not constitute a valid legal marriage and that Section 498A could not, therefore, be invoked against them. Only a "legally wedded wife" can claim protection under Section 498A, the accused argued.
The Court disagreed. Relying on an earlier High Court ruling in Narayanan v. State of Kerala, the Court held:
"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 also referred to the case of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & Ors., in which the Supreme Court too held that a marital relationship, even if disputed in terms of legality, does not preclude the invocation of Section 498A, IPC if cruelty is established.
The Court was dealing with an appeal by four persons (husband of the deceased and her in-laws) who were earlier convicted by a trial court under Section 498A IPC, for driving an 18-year-old woman to die by suicide in 2002.
The woman had converted from Hinduism to Islam and married the accused man (first accused), after a relationship between the two was discovered by their families. The relationship came to light when the woman was less than 18 years old.
The Court was told that religious leaders from both communities mediated the matter, and that it was eventually decided that the girl would convert to Islam and marry the first accused once she became 18 years old.
After undergoing Muslim religious teachings, a nikah between her and the first accused was eventually solemnised once she had turned 18 years old.
The prosecution alleged that after the nikah, her husband and in-laws subjected her to physical and mental harassment, including dowry-related cruelty, ultimately driving her to take her life.
The husband and in-laws were initially booked for the offences under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 304B (dowry death), and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC.
However, the the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 304B and Section 306 due to insufficient evidence. Nevertheless, they were convicted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years along with fines.
The accused (appellants) challenged the trial court's conviction and sentence before the High Court.
Among other contentions, the appellants argued that was no legally valid marriage between the deceased and the the first accused as their relationship was based on a marriage agreement, and not any registration under a secular law.
The Court rejected this stance, holding that if a union has the colour of a legal marriage, a woman can seek protection under Section 498A IPC even if the union is later deemed invalid due to factors like age, mental status, religion, consanguinity, or an existing spouse.
Such marriages are to be treated as valid between the parties for all practical purposes unless one party challenges it and it is declared void on valid grounds, the Court said. In this case, the Court pointed out that the marriage was never legally called into question.
The High Court proceeded to uphold the trial court’s conviction on finding that testimonies from the deceased victim’s father, friends, and neighbors corroborated the allegations of physical and mental harassment against the appellants, including the allegations of dowry demands and physical abuse.
The Court opined that these crimes were serious, but also noted that the offence occurred in 2002, nearly 22 years ago, and that the deceased woman’s husband was only 19 years old at the time.
In view of this, the Court reduced the jail sentence imposed on the appellants.
The sentence of the husband and his mother was reduced from three years to 1.5 years of imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹25,000 each. The father-in-law and brother-in-law were awarded a reduced sentence of four months of imprisonment and order to each pay ₹10,000 as fine.
The Court also directed that ₹50,000 from the fines be paid as compensation to the victim’s father or his legal heirs.
Advocate Babu S Nair appeared for the appellants, while Public Prosecutor Seena C represented the State.
[Read Judgment]