Section 498A IPC Applies Even to Void or Live-In-Like Marriages: Karnataka HC Clarifies Scope Beyond Valid Matrimony

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Shivamogga-based cardiologist accused of subjecting his alleged live-in partner to sustained cruelty, attempting to burn her alive, and concealing an earlier marriage.

Court also ruled that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can apply even where a marriage is void, voidable or resembles a live-in relationship, so long as the woman was led to believe she was entering a marital union and was subjected to cruelty thereafter.

The bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed two petitions filed by the doctor and his family members, who sought to quash parallel criminal cases arising from complaints lodged by the same woman in 2016. One case, initiated in Shivamogga in 2019, concerned allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. The second, pending in Bengaluru since 2023, includes charges of attempted murder, dowry demands, bigamy, criminal intimidation and unlawful assembly.

According to the prosecution, the complainant married the doctor on 17 October 2010 after he allegedly concealed his subsisting first marriage with another woman, Naveena. The couple lived in Bengaluru and later shifted to Shivamogga for his work. The complainant alleged that her family gave gold, silver and cash at the time of marriage, and that the petitioner and his relatives thereafter subjected her to persistent mental and physical harassment, including fresh demands for dowry.

In August 2016, she returned to their residence after medical treatment to find the house vacated and her belongings missing. A theft case was first registered, but following further statements, Sections 498A and related charges were added. A more serious case was registered days later, when she was admitted to KC General Hospital with burn injuries. In her statement, she alleged that the petitioner and his relatives poured kerosene on her and attempted to set her ablaze after she confronted him about his earlier marriage. She survived the incident and subsequently gave a detailed account to the police.

The petitioner sought quashing of both cases, arguing primarily that Section 498A cannot be invoked because the complainant was never his “legally wedded wife".

He submitted that since his first marriage was still valid, the second marriage with the complainant was a nullity, and therefore a charge of marital cruelty could not lie. He also questioned the admissibility of the complainant’s hospital statement, claiming it should be treated as a dying declaration recorded without compliance with legal requirements. The petitioner further accused the complainant of filing multiple false complaints over the years to harass him.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that a man cannot use the illegality of his own conduct, such as suppressing a prior marriage, to escape criminal liability. Court observed that the complainant had lived with the petitioner as his wife, believing the marriage to be valid, and had cohabited with him in a relationship possessing the essential attributes of marriage.

In such circumstances, the protective purpose of Section 498A would be defeated if the accused were allowed to rely on technicalities of marital validity, court opined.

On the admissibility of the complainant’s hospital statement, court clarified that since she survived, the document is not a dying declaration and need not meet the strict procedural standards applicable to one. Its evidentiary value, the judge said, will be assessed during trial and cannot be grounds for quashing proceedings at the threshold.

Court also resolved the issue of parallel prosecutions, holding that the accused cannot face trial for the same 498A offence in two different courts. Accordingly, court transferred the Shivamogga case to the Bengaluru court where the more serious charges are pending, ensuring both matters are tried together.

Dismissing the petitions, the court directed that the criminal proceedings must continue in accordance with law.

Case Title: xxx vs State of Karnataka and Others

Order Date: November 18, 2025

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj