Single-judge Justice S Rachaiah held that if the marriage between the husband and wife is null and void, the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained.
A second wife of a man is not entitled to file a complaint against her husband or in-laws for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) since she is not recognised as a legally wedded wife, the Karnataka High Court recently ruled [Kantharaju And State of Karnataka].
Single-judge Justice S Rachaiah held that if the marriage between the husband and wife is null and void, the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained.
“A complaint filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable,” the Court made it clear.
Hence, it set aside the conviction of one Kantharaju (petitioner) after finding that the complainant was the second wife of the petitioner and the marriage was, therefore, null and void.
“The prosecution has to establish that the marriage of PW.1 (complainant) is legal or she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Unless, it is established that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the courts below ought to have acted upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that PW.1 was the second wife. Once PW.1 is considered as second wife of the petitioner, the complaint filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of IPC ought not to have been entertained,” the High Court held.
The complainant (second wife) had alleged that she suffered from paralysis a few years after marriage, and as a result, the petitioner began to harass and subject her to cruelty and mental torture.
She further alleged that she was forcefully removed from her matrimonial home and the petitioner even made threats of setting her on fire.
However, the petitioner argued that since the complainant is the second wife, the offence of cruelty cannot be attracted and both the trial court and the appellate courts made a mistake in overlooking this aspect.
The Court relied on witness evidence and noted that it was undisputed fact that complainant was the second wife of petitioner.
Hence, the courts below committed error in applying the principles and also the law on this aspect, the High Court said.
“Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant in her evidence, PW.2 being the mother of PW.1 both have consistently deposed and admitted that, PW.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction requires it to be set aside,” the Court ordered while acquitting the petitioner.
