Court Rules Formal Traditional Marriage Not Essential for Penal Liability Under Section 498A; Quashing Petition Dismissed in Case Involving De Facto Cohabitation and Alleged Cruelty
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Calcutta High Court clarified the scope of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that criminal liability for cruelty by a husband or his relatives extends beyond formal, traditional marriages to include relationships in the nature of marriage. The Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Sk. Azharuddin @ Akash seeking quashing of charges including cruelty (Section 498A), cheating (Section 420), and extortion (Section 384) in connection with his relationship with the complainant, Koyel Begum alias Jaya Roy.
The case arose from a complaint alleging that the petitioner had deceitfully presented himself as unmarried, induced the complainant to convert to Islam, and cohabited with her as husband and wife, only for her to later discover that the petitioner was already married with a pregnant wife. The complainant alleged that following this discovery, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and ultimately driven out of their shared residence.
The petitioner argued that since the complainant's prior marriage was subsisting at the time and no formal Muslim marriage registration was produced, there was no valid marriage between them, rendering Section 498A inapplicable. He sought to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution was an abuse of process based on technical statutory defenses.
Rejecting this contention, Justice Uday Kumar emphasized the purposive interpretation of Section 498A, relying heavily on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026), which expanded the ambit of Section 498A to include live-in relationships and relationships in the nature of marriage. The Court noted that the provision's objective is reformative and protective, aimed at preventing cruelty within domestic setups, and thus should not be narrowly construed to exclude victims based on technical defects in marital status.
The Court examined the evidentiary material, including statements of independent witnesses such as the landlord who confirmed the couple resided together as spouses, and the complainant's parents corroborating the cohabitation and domestic disputes. It concluded that a formal, flawless traditional marriage is not an indispensable prerequisite for prosecution under Section 498A when consenting adults cohabit as spouses with societal recognition and intent to marry.
Further, the Court held that disputed factual questions, such as the validity of religious conversion, subsistence of prior marriages, and allegations of deceit, cannot be adjudicated under the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) at the preliminary stage. Such issues require a full trial and evidence tested through cross-examination.
The Court also clarified that judicial pronouncements clarifying statutory provisions apply retrospectively to ensure the proper application of legislative intent and do not amount to retrospective criminalization.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the trial, safeguarding procedural rights of parties. The judgment reinforces the protective reach of Section 498A IPC, reflecting a progressive approach that balances legal technicalities with social realities of domestic relationships.
Bottom Line:
Section 498A IPC - Relationship in the nature of marriage - A formal, traditional marriage is not an indispensable prerequisite for invoking penal liability under Section 498A IPC; the provision extends to domestic arrangements where consenting adults cohabit as spouses, evidenced by shared household, societal recognition, and intent to marry.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 498A IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 384 IPC, Section 482 CrPC, Section 156(3) CrPC, Section 161 CrPC, Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act
Sk. Azharuddin @ Akash v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972302
