KOCHI: A legally valid marriage is necessary to sustain complaints alleging cruelty by husband or relatives, the Kerala high court has held.
Justice B Kemal Pasha gave the ruling while considering a petition filed by a mother-in-law, Suprabha Dharan of Parippally in Kollam, seeking to quash a criminal case against her based on her daughter-in-law's complaint.
Based on the complaint, police had registered a criminal case against the husband and in-laws.
In the petition filed through advocate Siby Mathew, the mother-in-law contended that her son's marriage with another woman was subsisting during the period in which the alleged acts of cruelty took place.
Her son got divorced from his first wife only on April 30, 2003, and then married this woman on October 14, 2003, as per Special Marriage Act. The alleged acts of cruelty took place prior to registration of marriage. A valid marriage is a necessary ingredient to invite an offence under Section 498A of IPC. As her son's first marriage was existing, his relationship with the woman who complained could not create any valid marriage, the mother-in-law's counsel pointed out.
Opposing this, the complainant's counsel argued that a valid marriage is not required to invite the offence under Section 498A, whereas a long collaboration in the form of marriage is sufficient.
To decide the case, the court relied on a 2002 decision of the Supreme Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh. It was held by a three-member bench that a second marriage will be null and void on account of the subsistence of the earlier valid marriage.
Quashing the case against the mother-in-law, the high court held that an offence under Section 498A cannot be included in the case for any period prior to October 14, 2003, when the marriage was registered.
KOCHI: A legally valid marriage is necessary to sustain complaints alleging cruelty by husband or relatives, the Kerala High Court has held.
The ruling by justice B Kemal Pasha was while considering a petition filed by a mother-in-law, Suprabha Dharan of Parippally in Kollam, seeking to quash the criminal case against her based on her daughter-in-law's complaint.
Based on the complaint, police had registered a criminal case against the husband and in-laws.
In the petition filed through advocate Siby Mathew, the mother-in-law contended that her son's marriage with another woman was subsisting during the period in which the alleged acts of cruelty took place.
Her son obtained a divorce on his first marriage only on April 30, 2003 and then married the woman who complained on October 14, 2003 as per Special Marriage Act. The alleged acts of cruelty occurred prior to registration of marriage. A valid marriage is a necessary ingredient to invite an offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. As her son's first marriage was existing, his relationship with the woman who complained could not create any valid marriage, the mother-in-law's counsel pointed out.
Opposing this, the complainant's counsel argued that a valid marriage is not required to invite the offence under section 498A, whereas a long collaboration in the form of marriage is sufficient.
To decide the case, the court relied on a 2002 decision of the Supreme Court, in Shivcharan Lal Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh. It was held by a three-member bench that a second marriage will be null and void on account of the subsistence of the earlier valid marriage.
Quashing the case against the mother in law, the high court held that an offence under section 498A cannot be included in the case for any period prior to October 14, 2003, when the marriage was registered.
In the petition filed through advocate Siby Mathew, the mother-in-law contended that her son's marriage with another woman was subsisting during the period in which the alleged acts of cruelty took place.
Her son got divorced from his first wife only on April 30, 2003, and then married this woman on October 14, 2003, as per Special Marriage Act. The alleged acts of cruelty took place prior to registration of marriage. A valid marriage is a necessary ingredient to invite an offence under Section 498A of IPC. As her son's first marriage was existing, his relationship with the woman who complained could not create any valid marriage, the mother-in-law's counsel pointed out.
Opposing this, the complainant's counsel argued that a valid marriage is not required to invite the offence under Section 498A, whereas a long collaboration in the form of marriage is sufficient.
To decide the case, the court relied on a 2002 decision of the Supreme Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh. It was held by a three-member bench that a second marriage will be null and void on account of the subsistence of the earlier valid marriage.
Quashing the case against the mother-in-law, the high court held that an offence under Section 498A cannot be included in the case for any period prior to October 14, 2003, when the marriage was registered.
KOCHI: A legally valid marriage is necessary to sustain complaints alleging cruelty by husband or relatives, the Kerala High Court has held.
The ruling by justice B Kemal Pasha was while considering a petition filed by a mother-in-law, Suprabha Dharan of Parippally in Kollam, seeking to quash the criminal case against her based on her daughter-in-law's complaint.
Based on the complaint, police had registered a criminal case against the husband and in-laws.
In the petition filed through advocate Siby Mathew, the mother-in-law contended that her son's marriage with another woman was subsisting during the period in which the alleged acts of cruelty took place.
Her son obtained a divorce on his first marriage only on April 30, 2003 and then married the woman who complained on October 14, 2003 as per Special Marriage Act. The alleged acts of cruelty occurred prior to registration of marriage. A valid marriage is a necessary ingredient to invite an offence under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. As her son's first marriage was existing, his relationship with the woman who complained could not create any valid marriage, the mother-in-law's counsel pointed out.
Opposing this, the complainant's counsel argued that a valid marriage is not required to invite the offence under section 498A, whereas a long collaboration in the form of marriage is sufficient.
To decide the case, the court relied on a 2002 decision of the Supreme Court, in Shivcharan Lal Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh. It was held by a three-member bench that a second marriage will be null and void on account of the subsistence of the earlier valid marriage.
Quashing the case against the mother in law, the high court held that an offence under section 498A cannot be included in the case for any period prior to October 14, 2003, when the marriage was registered.
by timesofindia.indiatimes
What is 498a?
Indian Penal Code 498a allows a woman and her family to make a written false complaint of dowry harassment to the police which results in the husband, his parents and relatives being immediately arrested without sufficient investigation and put behind bars without bail. Even if the 498a threat is false, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
498a can only be invoked by the wife or her relative. Most 498a cases are mere blackmail attempts by the wife or her close relatives. In most cases, a demand for a large sum of money is offered to the husband in exchange for settlement of the case out of court. There have been countless instances where, without any investigation, the police have arrested elderly parents, unmarried sisters, pregnant sister-in-laws and even 3 year old children. A typical case takes approximately 5-7 years and the conviction rate is only 2%.
There are fundamental problems with 498a in that it is 100% gender biased and singles out men as perpetrators of domestic violence and assumes that only women are victims.
In the United States domestic violence laws are gender neutral and provide protection to the victims, both men and women. If you reside in the United States please call us at (855)-WHY-498A today to set up an appointment with Mrs. Desai to provide you with a plan of action.
Orange County Office:
3111 N. Tustin St., Suite 200
Orange, CA 92865
Long Beach Office:
3605 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
St. Louis Office:
8711 St. Charles Rock Road
St. Louis, MO 63114
3111 N. Tustin St., Suite 200
Orange, CA 92865
Long Beach Office:
3605 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90807
St. Louis Office:
8711 St. Charles Rock Road
St. Louis, MO 63114
Contact Information
| Phone: | (855)-WHY-498A |
| Fax: | (714)-637-1713 |
| Email: | info@498alawyer.com |
| Web: | www.498alawyer.com |
