Why the High Court refused to set aside the dowry death case against “Cohabitant”

The Allahabad High Court, in a recent order, refused to quash the cases of Dowry death and cruelty (Section 498-A) against a man who claimed that the dead wife was only a live-in partner and that they were not legally married. The court, while denying any relief to the man, said that “to attract the provisions of Section-304-B ​​and 498-A of the IPC, it is sufficient to show that the victim wife and accused husband reside as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.”

Section 304-B ​​deals with dowry death and Section 498-A deals with cruelty by husband or husband’s relative to a married woman.

The high court dismissed the man’s plea against a Prayagraj sessions court order rejecting his dismissal plea in a dowry death case of his alleged partner.

Why did the court deny relief?

The man moved the court arguing that the dead woman was just a live-in relationship and they had not married each other. He further submitted that the deceased wife was earlier married to one Rohit Yadav and later she has started living with the applicant in cohabitation relationship without obtaining divorce from said Rohit Yadav and therefore the deceased is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and therefore the provisions of Section – 304-B ​​IPC are not attracted against the applicant.

The court noted that in the FIR, it was alleged that after some time of marriage of the deceased wife with Rohit Yadav, the accused man molested her and the deceased divorced her husband Rohit Yadav and then the applicant’s parents have said they would. accept her as the wife of the accused and the marriage of the deceased wife with the accused has been carried out judicially but later she was harassed by him and he demanded money from her and caused her the dead

“Thus, in the first information report there is a clear statement that the marriage took place between the deceased and the applicant. It is not disputed that at the time of the incident, she was residing with the applicant. Until and otherwise, the question whether the deceased was legally married to the applicant’s wife or not cannot be decided in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC,” the order noted.

What does the Supreme Court ruling say about these cases?

The high court’s order cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam And Ors 2004 in which it was held that a man cohabiting with such a woman, in the alleged exercise of his role and status as “husband ” couldn’t be taken. outside the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC.

He further cited a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Mohitram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, where it was held that the intention of the legislature behind inserting the provisions of Section-304-B ​​IPC was that the husband and his relatives, who are liable for the Dowry death of a woman should be put on pain of death for dowry whether the marriage in question was valid or not.

“It has been observed that to attract the provisions of Section – 304-B ​​and 498-A of the IPC, it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and the accused husband are residing as husband and wife in the relevant time case, even assuming that the deceased does not fall within the scope of the legally married wife, there is ample evidence in the record that the applicant and the deceased were living together as husband and wife at the relevant time,” the high court said.

The Court said that at this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can change and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.

“Where the material on record reveals a serious suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting the application for dismissal. The Court should not hold a mini-trial by marshaling the evidence,” point to the order.