Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a man accused of causing the dowry death of his wife/live-in partner, seeking to have the case against him quashed. The man argued that charges under Section 304-B of the IPC could not be invoked since the deceased was not his legally wedded wife.

However, referring to the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment in Mohitram vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2004) the bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held that in order to attract provisions of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, it is sufficient to show that victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.

In the instant case, court said that even if it was assumed that the deceased did not fall within the ambit of a legally wedded wife, there was ample evidence on record that the accused and deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.

Accordingly, court dismissed the man's plea filed under Section 482, CrPC. 

Before the high court, the man argued that the deceased was previously married to another man, and they had not divorced before she entered a live-in relationship with him.

However, the court rejected this argument, citing that under the law, a marital relationship is not strictly necessary to attract dowry-related charges. Court emphasized that the validity of the marriage was irrelevant at this stage, and such matters could only be resolved during the trial.

The court referred to previous legal rulings, stating that Section 304-B and related provisions are designed to protect women in domestic partnerships from cruelty and harassment, regardless of the legal status of their marriage.

As a result, court ruled that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the trial and denied the application to quash the case.

Case Title: Adarsh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another