HC: Valid marriage must for complaints of cruelty by in-laws

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.