In a recent verdict titled “Narayanan & Ors. v State of Kerala,” the Kerala High Court provided a significant clarification on the application of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that this section, which penalizes cruelty to a married woman, cannot be invoked by women in live-in relationships.
Justice Sophy Thomas emphasized that, in order for a woman to seek protection under Section 498A, she must be legally married, either through religious or customary ceremonies, to the man accused of cruelty or to the man whose family members are accused of cruelty.
The judge explained, “When there is some form of marriage, either religious or customary, which has the semblance of a legal marriage, a woman can seek protection under Section 498A of the IPC, even if later, for some reason, that marriage is found to be legally invalid. However, in cases where there was no formal marriage and only a live-in relationship based on a mutual agreement, the woman cannot seek shelter under Section 498A of the IPC, claiming that they were perceived as a married couple due to their long cohabitation.”
The court made this observation while setting aside the conviction and sentencing of a man and his brother under Sections 498A and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. The charges were related to the death of a woman in 1997, who allegedly set herself on fire following cruelty and harassment she faced after eloping with the accused man.
Initially, the man and his family (including his mother, father, and brother) were convicted and sentenced by a sessions court shortly after the woman’s suicide, which occurred just a few months after they began living together.
In 2000, an appellate court partly allowed the appeals filed by the man and his family against the 1998 verdict. However, the accused filed another plea before the High Court seeking an honorable acquittal in the case.
On October 12, the High Court allowed their revision plea and overturned the trial court’s findings of guilt.
The High Court underlined that no formal marriage had taken place between the couple, and they had been living together based on a “marriage agreement” that lacked legal validity.
Consequently, the High Court ruled that the session court’s finding of guilt under Section 498A of the IPC was incorrect because the couple was not legally married. The Court stated, “In this case, since the marriage between the 1st revision petitioner and the deceased was not solemnized, and they started living together based on a marriage agreement with no legal validity, they must be considered individuals in a live-in relationship, not husband and wife, for Section 498A of IPC to be applicable.”
The convictions of the accused for abetment of suicide were also set aside as the Court found that the woman had not made any allegations against her partner or his brother (the revision petitioners) in her dying declaration.
Consequently, the High Court acquitted both accused individuals from this charge. In the interim, the man’s parents had passed away while the case was pending. Therefore, the Court ruled that the charges against the parents no longer applied.
Advocate KP Balagopal represented the revision petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Nima Jacob represented the State government.
