Allahabad HC Upholds Charges Of Cruelty & Dowry Death Against Live-In Partner
The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash charges of cruelty and dowry death against a man, who argued that he was merely a live-in partner of a woman who died by suicide.
The trial court had previously denied an application seeking his discharge from the criminal case.
A Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh said, “In the instant case, for the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the deceased does not fall within the ambit of legally wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that applicant and deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point of time.”
Advocate Durgesh Kumar Singh appeared for the Applicant.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and Others (2004), which highlighted that the absence of a specific definition of "husband" that includes individuals in live-in relationships does not exempt them from the provisions of Section 304B (dowry death) and Section 498A (cruelty to married women) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Additionally, the Court cited a judgment from the Chhattisgarh High Court, which stated that it is sufficient to demonstrate that the accused and the victim were living together as husband and wife to invoke the charges under the aforementioned sections of the IPC. The Chhattisgarh High Court had expressed that the legislative intent behind Section 304B was to ensure that husbands and their relatives could be held accountable for a woman's dowry death, irrespective of the legal validity of the marriage.
The Court determined that whether the marriage between applicant and the deceased was valid was a factual matter that could only be addressed during the trial. The Court highlighted that the First Information Report (FIR) explicitly mentioned that the marriage occurred through legal proceedings. It noted that even if this assertion was contested, the charges against applicant could not be quashed at this stage.
The Court noted, “It is not disputed that at the time of incident, she was residing with the applicant. Even, otherwise the question whether deceased was legally wedded wife of applicant or not cannot be decided in these proceedings under Section - 482 Cr.P.C.”
Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the proceedings to move forward.
Cause Title: Adarsh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., [2024:AHC:153514]
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Durgesh Kumar Singh, Jyoti Prakash, and Rishabh Narain Singh.