AP High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Husband's Alleged Second Wife, Says She's Not 'Relative' Under S.498A IPC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed cruelty FIR agaist a woman accused of being the second wife of a married man, after noting that she would not fall under the category of "relative" to invoke Section 498A IPC.[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145]

For context FIR was lodged under Section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman;  Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was also invoke which criminalizes giving, taking and demanding dowry.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy referred to Supreme Court's decision in U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police (2009) discussing the ambit of the term relative and observed:

"Apparently, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner/A6, who is alleged to have bigamy of accused No.1, would not come under the meaning of relative...A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet coupled with the statements of listed witnesses prima facie goes to show that the accused No.1 had not deserted the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and it appears that though they are having marital disputes, they have been residing together under one roof, since there is no statement that any of the party filed petition seeking decree for dissolution of their marriage.

When such is the case, it is quite surprising to state by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant in her statement that she learnt about the second marriage of accused No.1 with the petitioner/A6. If really the accused No.1 had illicit intimacy with the petitioner/A6 and contacted second marriage with her, she might have filed some proof to that effect. Further, if at all the accused No.1 contacted second marriage with the petitioner/A6, she would be the aggrieved person under Section 494 of IPC arising out of the gross fraud perpetrated upon her, concealing the fact of accused No.1 having an earlier living wife i.e. respondent No.2/de facto complainant and marrying the petitioner/ A6. 

The court said that in respect of offences under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, 1961 alleged against the petitioner, there were only "vague and bald allegations" made. The court found that there was no material on record to connect the petitioner to the alleged offences. 

The court said that even if the entire accusations made as against the petitioner are accepted as true and correct, "no prima facie case for the offences alleged is made out against her" and the chances of convicting her when the trial takes place are bleak and remote. 

The case arose from a petition filed by a woman who was accused of marrying the complainant's husband (accused No.1) during the subsistence of his first marriage. Arrayed as accused No.6, she sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against her for offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the prosecution, the complainant married her husband (accused No.1) in 2003 and they had two daughters. She alleged that accused No.1 and his family harassed her for not bearing a male child, demanded additional dowry, and that accused No.1 subsequently developed an illicit relationship with the petitioner and married her without the complainant's consent. It was further alleged that the petitioner instigated accused No.1 and his family to subject the complainant to mental and physical cruelty.

The petitioner argued that she had been falsely implicated because of the marital dispute between the complainant and accused No.1. She contended that she could not be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act, as she was neither the husband nor his "relative". She also relied on Supreme Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court precedents in support of her plea.

Opposing the petition, the complainant contended that the petitioner had entered into a second marriage with accused No.1, instigated the dowry demands, and that these were disputed questions of fact requiring a full-fledged trial.

Examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the complainant and accused No.1 continued to reside together despite their marital disputes and that no divorce proceedings had been initiated. It observed that the complainant had produced no proof of the alleged second marriage and further remarked that, if such a marriage had in fact taken place, the petitioner herself could be an aggrieved person under Section 494 IPC, having allegedly been deceived into marrying a man with a living spouse.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (A6).

Case Title: M. Annapurna Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8080 of 2022

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu

Counsel for Respondents: Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, Public Prosecutor (Andhra Pradesh)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 145