The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a second wife of a man is not entitled to file a complaint against her husband or in-laws for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) since she is not recognised as legally wedded wife.
A Single-Judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah held that if the marriage gets null and void, the offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be sustained.
The Court also made it clear, “A complaint filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable.“
Due to this, the Court set aside the conviction of one petitioner, Kantharaju after finding that the complainant was the second wife of the petitioner and the marriage was null and void.
The High Court also held, “The prosecution has to establish that the marriage of PW.1 (complainant) is legal or she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Unless it is established that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the courts below ought to have acted upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that PW.1 was the second wife. Once PW.1 is considered as second wife of the petitioner, the complaint filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of IPC ought not to have been entertained.”
The complainant (second wife) alleged that when she got paralysis a few years after marriage, due to which, her husband’s (petitioner) behaviour changed and he began harassing her and also subject her to cruelty as well as mental torture.
Furthermore, she also alleged that she was removed from her matrimonial home forcefully and also got threats of setting her on fire by the petitioner.
On the other hand, the petitioner made the argument that since the complainant is the second wife, she couldn’t impose the offence of cruelty and both the trial court and the appellate courts erred in the case by not taking this perspective into account.
The Court generally relied on witness evidence and also considered that the complainant was not the first but the second wife of the petitioner.
The Court below committed an error in applying the laws and principles in this case, the High Court said.
The Court directed while acquitting the petitioner, “Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant in her evidence, PW.2 being the mother of PW.1 both have consistently deposed and admitted that PW.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction requires it to be set aside.”
Advocate Chetan Desai represented Kantharaju while Advocate Rahul Rai K represented the State.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/section-498a-ipc-karnataka-high-court-second-wife-cannot-complaint-husband-in-laws-cruelty