Woman Can't Invoke S.498A IPC Against Family Of Second Husband If First Marriage Subsists: Bombay High Court

A First Information Report (FIR) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the family members of a woman's second husband cannot be sustained in law, if her first marriage subsists, held the Bombay High Court recently while quashing a criminal case lodged against the family members and a friend of a man. [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303]

Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale held that the family members of the second husband cannot be brought under the ambit of the definition of 'relatives' mentioned in section 498A of the IPC. 

"As regards the present FIR filed under Section 498-A of the IPC against the second husband and his family members i.e. the present Petitioners and friend, it would be clear, that the provisions of Section 498-A cannot be made applicable to the present Petitioners because on the date of FIR, the complainant woman's first marriage with another man was existing and therefore the second husband could not have been termed as her husband and his family could not have been termed as relatives of the husband. In my view, invocation of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is totally untenable and unsustainable," Justice Bhonsale said in the June 10 order. 

Notably, in a separate order, the High Court has refused to quash a separate FIR lodged by the in-laws against the complainant in this very case under charges of extortion as she demanded Rs 25 lakhs alimony from her second husband despite subsistence of her first marriage.

In the instant order, Justice Bhonsale noted that the complainant wife had performed her second marriage with the petitioner's son in September 2015 when her first marriage continued to subsist.

The judge further noted that the second husband (son and brother of the petitioners) worked in Australia and transferred money to Petitioner's bank account every month and even his mother (petitioner), who lived in Pune kept giving her gifts and money, who did not live in her matrimonial house post her second marriage. The judge noted that when the wife went to Dubai without informing her in-laws or husband and when she was questioned about the same, she quarrelled with the in-laws and created a scene outside their house. She even went to her husband's office in Australia to create an unwanted scene. 

The judge noted that the complainant accused the petitioners of not helping her to apply for visa for Australia and that they made demands of a flat and dowry. The wife had also accused her husband's friend of asking her to comply with the husband's unlawful dowry demands. 

"In my view welfare or beneficial legislation cannot be used as a weapon to terrorise and harass people as is done by the complainant wife in the present case. This is not the object or intent of the legislation. Welfare legislation is for genuine cases and cannot be misused as a tool for seeking revenge, settling scores and/or for personal vendetta," Justice Bhonsale observed in the June 10 order.

Even though section 498-A is a beneficial legislation, the judge emphasised that the interpretation of the section would generally have to be in line with and compatible to the objects of said section.

"In the present case the complainant wife being aware, has suppressed the fact of a subsisting first marriage, misrepresented her marital status on a matrimonial website and simultaneously filed proceedings in respect of both the marriages. The conduct of such a party/litigant ought to be taken into consideration as it is smacks of malafides and dishonest intentions, to say the least Courts cannot permit and be mute spectators when a welfare legislation is misused to harass and threatened the citizens of the country. Her conduct, clearly amounts to a misuse of the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC, which is a social welfare legislation. The same has been weaponized as against the Petitioners and the husband," the judge remarked. 

Further, it was taken into account that Petitioner's uncle and her family members mounted pressure on the second husband and his mother to pay Rs 25 lakhs alimony and settle the dispute and threatened them of filing false cases under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judge also noted that the complaint who first got married in 2004 and left the first husband in 2007 but had not got the said marriage dissolved but before that she married the present petitioner's son after meeting him through a matrimonial site, where she had declared herself 'unmarried and spinster.'

However, the complainant woman contended that she was a minor at the time of her first marriage and thus, that marriage cannot be considered to be a valid one. 

"The complainant wife's conduct and the record in the present case, are clearly demonstrative of her malicious and mala fide intentions as she is said to have demanded an amount of Rs. 25 lacs from her second husband and his family towards alimony. Considering the facts of the present case and the surrounding circumstances, it is clear that, she has misused and abused the process of law by filing the present FIR. In case the correct facts were placed on record, the FIR would not have been registered. The Petitioners have made out a case under Section 482 of CrPC for seeking quashing of the FIR. This is a fit case where the inherent powers be exercised to quash the proceedings and to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice," Justice Bhonsale opined. 

With these observations, the judge quashed the FIR qua the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sisters-in-law and friend of the second husband.

Appearance:

Advocates Himanshu Nagarkar and Kajal S appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Kaushik represented the State.

Advocates Radhika Samant and Pooja Bhide represented the Complainant. 

Case Title: SSD vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 2063 of 2017)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment