Allahabad High Court allows trial of man for dowry death of live-in partner

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash charges of cruelty and dowry death against a man who claimed to have been only a live-in partner of a woman who had died by suicide [Adarsh Yadav vs State of UP and Another].

Justice Raj Beer Singh said that even if it were assumed that the victim did not fall within the ambit of a legally wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record to show that the accused and the victim were residing together "as husband and wife" at the relevant point of time.

“In the instant case, for the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the deceased does not fall within the ambit of legally wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that applicant and deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point of time," the order said.

The Court relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and Others in 2004. The following was observed in that ruling:

“The absence of a definition of 'husband' to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as 'husband' is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A, IPC."

Further, Justice Singh also referred to a ruling of the Chhattisgarh High Court which held that it is sufficient to show that an accused and a victim were "residing as husband and wife" to attract charges under Sections 498A (cruelty to married woman) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“The Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Mohitram vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2004... has held that the intention of legislature behind inserting the provisions of Section - 304-B I.P.C. was that husband and his relatives, who are responsible for the dowry death of a woman should be brought into mischief of dowry death whether the marriage in question was valid or not. It was observed that in order to attract provisions of Section - 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C., it is sufficient to show that victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time," Justice Singh observed.

The trial court had earlier rejected an application moved by the accused, Adarsh Yadav, seeking his discharge from the criminal case.

Challenging the charges against him, the accused told the High Court that the victim had earlier married another man. There was no credible evidence to show that the woman had divorced this man, the accused said.

It was also submitted that she had started living with the applicant (accused) in a live-in relationship and that no marriage had taken place between the couple. 

However, the State said the complaint clearly mentioned that after the victim's first marriage, she was divorced by her first husband and that she had married the applicant thereafter. 

The State added that there were allegations that dowry harassment had prompted the woman's suicide at the premises of the applicant-accused.

Whether the marriage between the deceased woman and the applicant was lawful or not is a question of fact that can only be examined during trial, the State said.

The Court noted there was a clear averment in the First Information Report (FIR) that the marriage of victim and accused had “taken place through court." The Court said that even if this position is disputed, it cannot quash the charges against the accused at present.

“It is not disputed that at the time of incident, she was residing with the applicant. Even, otherwise the question whether deceased was legally wedded wife of applicant or not cannot be decided in these proceedings under Section - 482 Cr.P.C.,” it said.

Thus, the Court upheld the trial court order and allowed the trial to continue.

Advocates Durgesh Kumar Singh, Jyoti Prakash, Rishabh Narain Singh represented the applicant.

[Read Order]