{"id":251297,"date":"2005-05-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005"},"modified":"2016-02-05T00:10:40","modified_gmt":"2016-02-04T18:40:40","slug":"john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005","title":{"rendered":"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 9610 of 2002\n\n\n1. JOHN IDICULLA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. GLORY JOHN @ GLORY SAMUEL,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n2. VALSAMMA JOHN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA\n\n Dated :     23\/05\/2005\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
.PL 55
\n.TM 4
\n.BM 3
\n……..L…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…..T.J<\/p>\n
           K. HEMA, J.@@
\n        jAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
         ——————————–@@
\n        j
\n         Crl.M.C.No.9610 of 2002@@
\n        j\n<\/p>\n
         ———————————-@@
\n        j<\/p>\n
         Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2005@@
\n        j<\/p>\n
         ORDER@@
\n        jAAAAA
\n.SP 2
\n((HDR 0
\n[Crl.M.C.No.9610\/2002]\n<\/p>\n
 -: # :-@@
\nj
\n))
\n.HE 1<\/p>\n
        \tAn interesting question arises in this case.  Can
\n        the so-called “second wife” of the  husband  who  married
\n        her during the subsistence of his earlier legal marriage,
\n        be  treated  as  “the  relative  of the husband”, for the
\n        purpose of section 498A<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code  (  IPC<\/a>,
\n        for short) ?   If so, under what circumstances ?  Will an
\n        offence under section 498A<\/a> of  IPC  lie  against  such  a
\n        “second   wife”   if   she   inflicts   cruelty   on  the
\n        legally-wedded wife of the husband?\n<\/p>\n
        \t2.  Here are the  relevant  factual  details,  as
\n        unfurled from  the  records  :   Second respondent herein
\n        filed a complaint\/Annexure-I against the  petitioners  as
\n        accused  1  and 2, and also against four other members of
\n        the husband’s family as accused 3 to 6 alleging  offences
\n        under  sections  498A<\/a>,  494<\/a>  and  34<\/a>  of  IPC  before the
\n        Magistrate’s court.  The complaint was forwarded  by  the
\n        lower court  to  Police under Section 156(3)<\/a> Cr.P.C.  for
\n        investigation and report.   Police  after  investigation,
\n        registered  a  crime  and  filed  charge sheet Annexure-D
\n        against accused 1 to 6 for the  offences  under  Sections
\n        498A<\/a>, 494<\/a>  and 34<\/a> IPC.  But, the court below did not take
\n        cognizance of offence under section 494<\/a>  IPC.    Specific
\n        instances  of  matrimonial  cruelty  are  narrated in the
\n        complaint.  Hence, the accused are proceeded against only
\n        under sections 498A<\/a> and 34<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        \t3.  According to Learned  counsel  appearing  for
\n        the  petitioners,  an offence under section 498A<\/a> IPC will
\n        lie only against the husband and\/or `the relative of  the
\n        husband’ of  a  woman.  But, the second petitioner who is
\n        not a legally-wedded wife as per the allegations  in  the
\n        complaint  itself  cannot  be treated as `the relative of
\n        the husband’ and hence she  cannot  be  held  liable  for
\n        offence under  section 498A<\/a> IPC.  To understand the depth
\n        of the above contention, it is necessary to  examine  the
\n        language of the section first.  Section 498A<\/a> of IPC reads
\n        as follows:\n<\/p>\n
.SP 1<\/p>\n
         “Section 498-A<\/a>:    Husband or relative of husband@@
\n        i
\n                of a woman subjecting her to  cruelty.-  Whoever,
\n                being  the husband or the relative of the husband
\n                of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty  shall
\n                be  punished  with  imprisonment for a term which
\n                may extend to  three  years  and  shall  also  be
\n                liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
         Explanation.-  For  the purposes of this section,@@
\n        i
\n                “cruelty” means-\n<\/p>\n
         (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a  nature@@
\n        i
\n                as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
\n                or  to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
\n                or health (whether mental  or  physical)  of  the
\n                woman; or<\/p>\n
         (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment@@
\n        i
\n                is with a view to  coercing  her  or  any  person
\n                related  to  her  to meet any unlawful demand for
\n                any  property  or  valuable  security  or  is  on
\n                account  of  failure by her or any person related
\n                to her to meet such demand.”\n<\/p>\n
.SP 2<\/p>\n
        \t4.  A reading of the section 498A<\/a> IPC shows  that
\n        an  offence  under the said section will lie only against
\n        the husband and\/or his relatives.  But who can be treated
\n        as a relative of the husband?  Borrowing meaning  of  the
\n        expression,  “relative” from other enactments like Mental
\n        Health  Act<\/a>  etc.,  and  also  the  dictionary,  it   was
\n        strenuously  argued  that  a  person  can be said to be a
\n        `relative’ of another only if such person is  related  to
\n        the other  “by  blood,  marriage  or  adoption”.  Learned
\n        counsel for petitioners made reference to Section 2(t)<\/a> of
\n        the Mental Health Act, 1987 which defines  `relative’  as
\n        follows:   “relative”  includes any person related to the
\n        mentally ill person  by  blood,  marriage  or  adoption.”
\n        Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition was also relied
\n        upon to  explain  the meaning of the word “relative”.  As
\n        per the said Dictionary, `relative’  means:    “A  person
\n        connected   by   blood   or  marriage.”  The  meaning  of
\n        “relative” in Webster’s Dictionary  can  also  be  looked
\n        into thus:   “Having relation to or bearing on something;
\n        close in connection; pertinent; relevant; not absolute or
\n        existing by itself; depending on or incident to something
\n        else; something considered in its relation  to  something
\n        else; a  person connected by blood or affinity, esp.  one
\n        allied by blood; a kinsman or kinswoman.”\n<\/p>\n
        \t5.  Based on the above facts, it was argued  that
\n        a  “relative”  is a person who is connected to another by
\n        “blood, marriage  or  adoption”.    But,  nobody  has   a
\n        contention  in  this  case  that the petitioners have any
\n        connection between them by blood.  There is also no  case
\n        that there  is  an  adoption  in  this  case.    But, the
\n        allegations in the complaint in this case reveal that the
\n        connection between the petitioners is  only  through  the
\n        marriage.  The narration in the complaint also shows that
\n        the  marriage  between  the petitioners took place during
\n        the subsistence of the  earlier  legal  marriage  of  the
\n        first petitioner\/husband  with the complainant.  Hence it
\n        was  strenuously  contended  by   Learned   Counsel   for
\n        petitioners that even if the allegations in the complaint
\n        is  accepted,  there  is  no valid “marriage” between the
\n        petitioners and consequently, it cannot also be said that
\n        they are related by marriage.\n<\/p>\n
        \t6.  Another argument raised is that a relative of
\n        the  husband is a person with whom the wife will normally
\n        interact after marriage, but such an interaction  between
\n        the  first  and  second  wife  is  out of question in the
\n        peculiar facts of this case.  Therefore, on  this  ground
\n        also,  the  second  petitioner  cannot be said to be `the
\n        relative of the husband’.  According to  learned  counsel
\n        for  petitioners,  law  can  treat  a  second  wife whose
\n        marriage is invalid only as a ” mistress” and  not  as  a
\n        “wife”   and  hence  it  will  be  paradoxical  and  even
\n        ridiculing for this court to hold that such a second wife
\n        will be liable for offence under  section  498A<\/a>  of  IPC,
\n        conferring  upon her status of a wife and relative of the
\n        husband by marriage.\n<\/p>\n
        \t7.  I do  agree  that  the  above  arguments  are
\n        thought-provoking.   But  on  a  deeper  probe  into  the
\n        relevant  aspects,  I  can  only  reject  them  for   the
\n        following reasons:    Firstly,  definition  of  a word or
\n        expression  given  under  other  enactments   cannot   be
\n        imported  into  the  situation  presently arising in this
\n        case to  interpret  the  word  `relative’.     The   word
\n        `relative’  appears  in  other  enactments  in  a totally
\n        different context than what is  stated  in  section  498A<\/a>
\n        IPC.   It  cannot be disputed that there are instances in
\n        which even the same word which is undefined and  used  in
\n        the same enactment in different places may have different
\n        meanings depending upon the context in which the word may
\n        appear.   It  has  also to be borne in mind that the word
\n        “relative ” is not defined under the Indian  Penal  Code<\/a>.
\n        This can be or may be a deliberate omission.  Legislature
\n        must  have  intentionally  left  it open for the court to
\n        interpret the meaning of the expression in a  given  case
\n        depending on the context.\n<\/p>\n
        \t8.   So,  the  meaning  of word `relative’ coming
\n        under  section  498A<\/a>  IPC  requires  to  be   interpreted
\n        independently, looking into the circumstances in which it
\n        is  used  in  the  section,  realising the purpose of the
\n        legislation, understanding the intention of the law-maker
\n        behind introduction  of  the  provision,  discerning  the
\n        object  sought  to be achieved and the mischief sought to
\n        be suppressed by the particular  provision.    In  short,
\n        mainly  Purposive  construction  has to be the rule which
\n        the  court  must  follow  to   interpret   the   relevant
\n        expression in section 498A<\/a> of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        \t9.  While doing so, as a first  step  towards  my
\n        attempt  in  understanding  the  real  import of the word
\n        “relative”,  I  think  I  can  safely   rely   upon   its
\n        dictionary-meaning.   As  per  dictionaries, which I have
\n        already referred to earlier, a  `relative’  is  a  person
\n        connected  to  another  “by blood, marriage or affinity”.
\n        But, as per personal law of the  parties  in  this  case,
\n        marriage  of the second petitioner cannot be said to be a
\n        valid one since it took place during the  subsistence  of
\n        an  earlier marriage of the first petitioner\/husband with
\n        the complainant.  In the strict  legal  sense  therefore,
\n        there  cannot  be any relationship between such a man and
\n        woman by marriage.  A second wife for  the  above  reason
\n        cannot  normally  be  given status of a “wife” because of
\n        absence of a legally valid marriage.\n<\/p>\n
        \t10.  But, such an inference may not  be  possible
\n        in all  circumstances.    It  will be interesting to note
\n        that in certain situations Law  itself  has  diluted  the
\n        rigidity of  concept  of  marriage.    For example, under
\n        section 125<\/a> of the Code of Criminal  Procedure.    Though
\n        the  section  deals  specifically  with  the  claim  of a
\n        “legally-wedded wife”, it is well-settled  that  even  if
\n        there  is no strict proof of a legal marriage between the
\n        man and woman, a woman will be entitled to maintenance as
\n        a “wife”  under  section  125<\/a>  of  the  code,  if  it  is
\n        established  that  by continued cohabitation between them
\n        for a long period they are treated as husband and wife by
\n        the society.  In other words, strict proof of marriage is
\n        not insisted upon under section 125<\/a> of the  Code,  though
\n        as  per  language  of the section, it is a legally-wedded
\n        wife who will be entitled to maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
        \t11.  It is also striking to note that the concept
\n        of “marriage” is liberally construed for the  purpose  of
\n        section  498A<\/a>  IPC in a recent celebrated decision of the
\n        Supreme Court in Reema Agarwal’s case (2004)3  SCC  199).@@
\n                         AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        It   was  held  in  the  said  decision  that  a  liberal
\n        interpretation  is  to  be  given   to   the   expression
\n        “marriage”, bearing in mind the object of section 498A<\/a> of
\n        IPC.   While  deciding  the  question  as to who could be
\n        covered by the expression “husband” coming under  section
\n        498A<\/a>  IPC,  it  was  held that the concept of marriage to
\n        constitute the relationship of “husband” and  “wife”  may
\n        require   a  liberal  and  different  approach  when  the
\n        question of curbing a social evil arises.  It was a  case
\n        in  which  it was contended that the marriage between the
\n        husband\/accused and wife\/complainant  was  not  legal  in
\n        view  of  an existing earlier marriage of the husband and
\n        hence the accused\/husband cannot  be  held  liable  under
\n        section 498A<\/a> IPC as the husband of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
        \t12.  It is worthy to extract the relevant portion
\n        from Reema  Aggarwal  v.    Anupam<\/a>  [(2004)3  SCC 199] as@@
\n             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        follows:\n<\/p>\n
.SP 1<\/p>\n
         ”  The  concept  of  marriage  to  constitute the@@
\n        i
\n                relationship of “husband” and “wife” may  require
\n                strict  interpretation  where  claims  for  civil
\n                rights, right to property etc.    may  follow  or
\n                flow   and   a  liberal  approach  and  different
\n                perception  cannot  be  an  anathema   when   the
\n                question    of   curbing   a   social   evil   is
\n                concerned……..  The absence of a definition of
\n                “husband” to specifically  include  such  persons
\n                who  contract  marriages  ostensibly  and cohabit
\n                with such woman, in  the  purported  exercise  of
\n                their  role  and status as “husband” is no ground
\n                to exclude them from the purview of Section 304-B<\/a>
\n                or 498-A IPC<\/a>, viewed in the context of  the  very
\n                object  and  aim  of the legislations introducing
\n                those provisions”.\n<\/p>\n
.SP 2<\/p>\n
        \t13.   On  going  through the facts of the case in
\n        the decision cited above, I find that  the  complaint  in
\n        that  case  was  filed  by a “second wife” whose marriage
\n        with the accused\/husband was not strictly legal  in  view
\n        of an  earlier  marriage  of the accused\/husband.  ( Hers
\n        was also  a  second  marriage)  Despite  this  fact,  the
\n        Supreme  Court held that the alleged “husband” is covered
\n        by section 498A<\/a> IPC, giving a liberal  interpretation  to
\n        the term  “marriage”.    Thus  it follows that as per the
\n        dictum laid down in the  said  case,  a  complaint  filed
\n        against  the  husband  by  such  a  “second  wife”  whose
\n        marriage is  not  legally  valid  is  maintainable  under
\n        section 498A<\/a>  IPC.    If  then,  can  such a second wife,
\n        supposing she is guilty  of  inflicting  cruelty  on  the
\n        legally-wedded  wife of her alleged husband be exonerated
\n        from a charge under the same section  that  too,  on  the
\n        ground of an invalid marriage?\n<\/p>\n
        \t14.  Certainly not.  Nothing confuses my  thought
\n        now.   I  have  no  doubt that it will be unjust, unfair,
\n        illogical and inequitable if I may hold otherwise.   When
\n        Law  and  Precedents  water  down  the  stiffness  of  an
\n        expression in aid of a victim-woman, I cannot even make a
\n        wild guess that the same expression will be  kept  harder
\n        and solid  for  protecting  an  erring-woman.  Law cannot
\n        blow hot and cold.  Precedents can neither play hide  and
\n        seek.   If  a  second wife whose marriage is not strictly
\n        legal commits matrimonial cruelty on  the  legally-wedded
\n        wife  of  her  alleged  husband, she cannot be allowed to
\n        wriggle out of the criminal liability under section  498A<\/a>
\n        IPC on the ground of invalidity of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
        \t15.  Before I proceed any further, I  shall  look
\n        at the  issue  from another angle also.  A glance through
\n        the facts of this case will be necessary here.    As  per
\n        the  allegations in this case, the second marriage of the
\n        petitioners was solemnised  at  the  instigation  of  the
\n        husband’s relatives.    They  were  residing  together as
\n        husband and wife to the knowledge of all concerned.  Over
\n        more than half of the husband’s  property  was  allegedly
\n        assigned  in  favour  of the second wife, treating her as
\n        his own “wife”.  It was the  third  accused  who  is  the
\n        brother-in-law of the husband who executed the assignment
\n        deed  in favour of the second petitioner, on the strength
\n        of a power of attorney executed by the husband in  favour
\n        of him.     The  assignment  was  effected  allegedly  as
\n        instigated by the second wife.  The property conveyed  to
\n        the  second  wife was the one in which the legally-wedded
\n        wife was residing.   It  prima  facie  appears  from  the
\n        allegations  in  the  complaint that for all purposes the
\n        second wife was treated  as  none  other  than  the  wife
\n        herself.\n<\/p>\n
        \t16.    So,  what  could  be  the  nature  of  the
\n        relationship between such  a  second  wife  and  husband?
\n        Firstly,  a  second wife who is accepted as “wife” by the
\n        husband and relatives gets recognised as such by  friends
\n        and society also.  She then, as a `wife’ starts exploring
\n        under  the  shade  of  matrimonial shelter, the warmth of
\n        consortium.   She  experiences  from  her  husband,   the
\n        intensity of  emotional  security.    She shares his bed,
\n        bears his child.  As she becomes the mother of his child,
\n        she treasures an everlasting bond which is inbred through
\n        the blood of their child.  She handles also the  strength
\n        of her  husband’s  financial  support.    She thus enjoys
\n        everything  that  his  former  legally-wedded  wife  once
\n        possessed  and  enjoyed  in  her  status as a wife at the
\n        matrimonial home.  Is not such a woman anybody to him?\n<\/p>\n
        \t17.  It is significant in this context to bear in
\n        mind,  some of the probable consequences which are caused
\n        by the entry of a second wife to the matrimonial home.  I
\n        do keep in mind, the inescapable anguish which the second
\n        wife  caused  by  permanently  destroying  all   possible
\n        chances of   a   re-union.      I  also  understand,  the
\n        ever-lingering and burning  ache  of  the  havoc  that  a
\n        second     wife     might    have    inflicted    on    a
\n        once-upon-close-knit family which was bound  by  a  legal
\n        marriage.   I  am  also  reluctant  to  overlook what she
\n        unmindfully overturned over night for  the  children  (if
\n        any)  who may be totally innocent in the whole interlude.
\n        If as a matter of fact, the second wife played a  willing
\n        role  in  the  second  marriage, ignoring all the painful
\n        consequences, she along with her husband committed  on  a
\n        legally-wedded  woman  nothing  short  of  an  offence of
\n        matrimonial cruelty.  Can such  a  woman  be  allowed  to
\n        escape?\n<\/p>\n
        \t18.  No.   I am of strong view that non-existence
\n        of a strictly legal marriage cannot be made a ground  for
\n        an offending  second wife to run away.  The invalidity of
\n        the marriage can under no circumstances be granted  as  a
\n        licence   to   her   to   harass   none  other  than  the
\n        legally-wedded wife.    She  shall  not  be  allowed   to
\n        skip-out of  the strong grip of law.  I do not think that
\n        arms of Law  are  that  slender  and  weak.    Those  can
\n        certainly  hold  within  the  fold,  such erring woman as
\n        well.  A court cannot remain divinely silent  to  forgive
\n        her  or  calmly  shut  its eyes to this tragic situation,
\n        assert and justify that a second wife  is  not  precisely
\n        referred  to  in the section and hence she is not covered
\n        by section 498A<\/a> IPC.  The legal system  in  this  country
\n        cannot  shy  away  and  hide  itself under the mask of an
\n        evasive explanation that a second wife cannot  be  teated
\n        as  a  `relative’  as  legislature  did  not specifically
\n        include the second wife in section 498A<\/a> etc.\n<\/p>\n
        \t19.  A court cannot allow  the  guilty  to  leave
\n        unhurt.    Court   cannot  lightly  blame  the  skill  of
\n        draftsmanship for  that  purpose.    Court  cannot  plead
\n        helplessness or extend an apology to the society that the
\n        second  wife  is  not  specifically brought under section
\n        498A<\/a> of IPC.  Society has faith in  court.    Legislature
\n        has confidence  in  court.  Both have great expectations.
\n        The court cannot fail.  It shall not.    It  is  wise  to
\n        remember  that  framers of law cannot foresee all sets of
\n        facts which may arise in each case and include all  those
\n        in a  particular  provision.   Even if the framers had in
\n        their minds a particular situation and they  intended  to
\n        include  the  same in the provision, it may not always be
\n        possible to do it for  various  reasons.    It  can  also
\n        happen   that   in  some  cases  legislature  would  have
\n        knowingly left open the expression undefined  leaving  it
\n        to  the  courts  to  define  it  in a given set of facts,
\n        keeping  in  mind  the  object  to  be  achieved  by  the
\n        provision.   Courts  have  therefore  to  make  a serious
\n        effort  to  understand  the  import  of  the   provision,
\n        consistent  with  the  intention  of  the legislature and
\n        interpret the same.\n<\/p>\n
        \t20.   While  doing  so,  I  find  that  the  main
\n        purpose, as discernible from section 498A<\/a> IPC is to deter
\n        a  person  –whether  it  be  a  man  or  a  woman– from
\n        inflicting cruelty on a woman  who  is  considered  as  a
\n        wife.   Legislature  intended  that  on  account  of  the
\n        marital relationship, no woman shall be subjected to  any
\n        harassment either physical or mental of the nature stated
\n        in the  section.    The  introduction  of  the section no
\n        doubt, is a visible step paced by the legislature towards
\n        eradication of evil of  domestic  violence,  being  quite
\n        wakeful  of  the  social conditions of a married woman in
\n        this country.  Section 498A<\/a> IPC is  introduced  into  the
\n        statute  to  curb  the social evil of matrimonial cruelty
\n        which a woman is made to suffer because of  her  marriage
\n        and her  status as a wife.  So, whatever be the gender of
\n        the offender, he or she is bound to meet the consequences
\n        under section 498A<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        \t21.  When  cruelty  to  a  married  woman  became
\n        rampant   and  widespread  in  our  society,  legislature
\n        thought it fit to introduce section 498A<\/a> into the  Indian
\n        Penal Code<\/a>.  It became necessary for law to protect women
\n        who suffer  the brunt of matrimonial cruelty.  One cannot
\n        forget the unclad reality that an ordinary Indian girl is
\n        brought up in the family by inducing into her, a  greater
\n        sense  of responsibility as a life-partner than even that
\n        of a  man.    She  grows  up  as  a  woman,  hearing  the
\n        preachings  of  grand-parents,  parents, and other elders
\n        that she is bound to preserve the sacred  matrimonial-tie
\n        by paying  whatever  price  it  may command.  Fingers are
\n        often pointed to the ideal of “Bhoomi Devi”  (Goddess  of
\n        Earth)  as  a  symbol of an Indian woman who humps on her
\n        palms patiently, the entire weight of the whole world.\n<\/p>\n
        \t22.  A girl in the family is normally disciplined
\n        at home to bear any hardship and suffering that may shoot
\n        up in the matrimonial life with high degree of  patience,
\n        courage and strength for maintaining the matrimonial bond
\n        strong and  firm.    Her  role  in  life  as  a  wife  is
\n        considered to be greater than that of a man as a  husband
\n        and  she is the one who is expected to make sacrifices to
\n        preserve the marriage for the sake of  her  children  and
\n        family.  This  is  the  culture of this country.  This is
\n        the tradition of this land.  This is  the  concept  which
\n        runs through  every  vein  of  Indian  society.    It  is
\n        therefore quite common to  drive  a  woman  back  to  the
\n        matrimonial   home,  either  slighting  or  ignoring  the
\n        physical and mental hurt which she  must  have  suffered,
\n        reminding  her  of  the  future of the children, with the
\n        oft-repeated advice:  “think of your children!” It cannot
\n        be disputed that in  certain  families  in  our  society,
\n        elders  even  forewarn  and  prepare  a  girl to accept a
\n        beating or two from her husband as an ordinary  tear  and
\n        wear of  family  life.  Neither a man nor woman of such a
\n        family considers it as a sin.\n<\/p>\n
        \t23.  Thus, when a  girl  who  is  brought  up  in
\n        normal  Indian conditions and her character is groomed in
\n        the traditional way and when she makes an attempt to live
\n        a life for the family and the  children  by  making  many
\n        sacrifices,  she hardens herself in the process to put up
\n        with any form of matrimonial  cruelty.    She  learns  to
\n        endure  major  part  of  the  injury, whether physical or
\n        mental in her own taught-way.  She accepts it as part  of
\n        the  solemn  duty  of a wife believing that those are all
\n        for the sake of a sacred purpose.  She thus gets equipped
\n        herself to suffer any form of matrimonial cruelty without
\n        raising much of  a  protest  because  she  knows  that  a
\n        married  woman  is  expected  even  by  the  members of a
\n        traditional  Indian  family  and  also  the  society   to
\n        silently languish  her  grievances.    It  may  not be an
\n        exaggeration that in certain cases, her voice and wail go
\n        unheard even by her own kith and kin.\n<\/p>\n
        \t24.  It  is  in  this  context  that  Legislature
\n        rightly  sensed  the  gravity  of  the problem of married
\n        women in this country and came up to the rescue  of  such
\n        women of  our society who genuinely suffer.  In the above
\n        scenario of all  what  I  have  discussed,  I  find  that
\n        Legislature  would  not  have intended that to unfetter a
\n        woman of  this  country  from  matrimonial  cruelty,  she
\n        should  plead  and prove before court in the strict legal
\n        terms, the legality of the matrimonial relationship which
\n        exists between the man and woman who are involved in  the
\n        case.   I  also  find it extremely difficult to hold that
\n        the legislature did not intend to include a  second  wife
\n        in section 498A<\/a> IPC as a person not related to the man by
\n        marriage.   I  cannot  ignore  all the unveiled realities
\n        encircling the issue and  make  an  unrealistic  approach
\n        while interpreting the relevant expression.\n<\/p>\n
        \t25.   The  test under section 498A<\/a> IPC is whether
\n        in the facts of each case, it is probable that a woman is
\n        treated by friends, relatives, husband or  society  as  a
\n        “wife” or  as  a  mere “mistress”.  If from the pleadings
\n        and evidence the court finds that the woman concerned  is
\n        regarded  as  wife and not as a mere mistress, she can be
\n        considered to  be  a  `wife’  and  consequently  as  `the
\n        relative of the husband’ for purpose of section 498A<\/a> IPC.
\n        Proof  of a legal marriage in the rigid sense as required
\n        under  civil  law  is  unnecessary  for  establishing  an
\n        offence under   section   498A<\/a>   IPC.     The  expression
\n        “marriage” or “relative” can  be  given  only  a  diluted
\n        meaning  which  a  common man or society may attribute to
\n        those concepts in the common parlance, for the purpose of
\n        section 498A<\/a> IPC.  A second wife who is treated  as  wife
\n        by  the  husband,  relatives,  friends  or society can be
\n        considered to be `the relative of the  husband’  for  the
\n        purpose of  section 498A<\/a> of IPC.  If she inflicts cruelty
\n        on the legally-wedded wife of  the  husband,  an  offence
\n        under section 498A<\/a> IPC will lie against her.\n<\/p>\n
        \t26.   Coming  to  the  facts of this case, I find
\n        that there are cogent  assertions  in  the  complaint  to
\n        proceed against the petitioners under section 498A<\/a> and 34<\/a>
\n        of IPC.    The  court  can  go  only  by  the allegations
\n        disclosed from  the  records  at  this  stage.    It   is
\n        well-settled  that a meticulous or a forensic search into
\n        such allegations is not what is contemplated at the stage
\n        of taking cognizance.    If  the  court  is  prima  facie
\n        satisfied  that  the  facts disclosed from the records on
\n        the face of it  constitute  an  offence,  the  court  can
\n        proceed against  the  accused  for  such  offence.    The
\n        records  in  this   case   support   such   prima   facie
\n        satisfaction  and  therefore,  the court below acted only
\n        well within its  jurisdiction  in  taking  cognizance  of
\n        offences under  section  498A<\/a>  and 34<\/a> of IPC.  I will not
\n        interfere.  I cannot also.\n<\/p>\n
        \tThe petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
.SP 1<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t\t\tK.HEMA, JUDGE@@
\n             AAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
        vgs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 9610 of 2002 1. JOHN IDICULLA, … Petitioner 2. GLORY JOHN @ GLORY SAMUEL, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. VALSAMMA JOHN, For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJohn Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-04T18:40:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-04T18:40:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4122,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\",\"name\":\"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-04T18:40:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-04T18:40:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005","datePublished":"2005-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-04T18:40:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005"},"wordCount":4122,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005","name":"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-04T18:40:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-idiculla-vs-state-of-kerala-on-23-may-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"John Idiculla vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=251297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}