Proceedings U/S 498A IPC By Second Wife Are Not Maintainable, Reiterates Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Section 498-A (for the offence of cruelty) of the IPC by the second wife are not maintainable. A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed thus while relying upon the Top Court's rulings in the cases of Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P 2002, Shivakumar and others Vs. State and Allahabad High Court's recent decision in the case of Akhilesh Keshari And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 208. The single judge allowed a section 482 CrPC plea moved by Maan Singh and 2 others challenging the proceedings of a complaint case under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act pending in the Court of CJM Kaushambi. The case in brief The complaint alleged that the marriage between applicant no. 1 (Maan Singh) and opposite party no. 2 took place in April 2012, and initially, there were no disputes for four years. However, after this period, Singh reportedly began to harass opposite party no. 2 for dowry while expressing his dissatisfaction with the gifts received. After that, since her father facilitated a settlement, they continued living together. However, as per the complaint, in October 2016, the applicants forced her into a car and told her to bring ₹2 lakh and a car from her maternal home. She reported the matter to the police; however, since no action was taken, she filed the instant complaint under the relevant provisions of the IPC and the D.P. Act. In her statement recorded under section 200 CrPC, the opposite party no. 2 alleged that applicant no. 2 was the first wife of applicant no. 1, that she lived with her in the same house, and that at the time of their marriage, the applicant no. 1 had misrepresented that his first wife had died; however, she did not object to this at that time as she believed that they all could live together. Challenging the entire complaint case before the HC, the applicants moved the HC, arguing that since it was admitted by the opposite party no. 2 that she is the second wife of the applicant herein, therefore, she is not competent to maintain the proceedings against the applicant for the offences under sections 498A IPC. So far as the allegations of demand of dowry and torture are concerned, it was argued that there was no demand of dowry or harassment up to four years of marriage and subsequent thereto, the allegations have been made about the demand of dowry. It was also contended that since the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with the applicant no. 1 was admittedly a nullity, therefore, neither the offence under section 498A IPC nor the offence u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act would be attracted in the instant case. On the other hand, the AGA appearing for the state argued that since the complaint alleged that all the applicants had physically assaulted her, therefore, the charges under sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC are maintainable. However, she also admitted that since this is a second marriage, the charges under section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act are not applicable. Having heard the rival submissions made by counsels for the parties, the Court noted that since the opposite party no. 2 is the second wife of applicant no. 1, the complaint filed at her instance was not maintainable. So far as the proceedings under section 3/4 D.P. Act are concerned, the Court noted that in the entire complaint, the allegations of demand of dowry which have been made that has neither been given nor agreed to have been given and hence, the charges under the DP Act were also not attracted. So far as the allegations of harassment and torture, the Court noted that there was no specific allegation, and only general and vague allegations were made by opposite party no. 2 without there being any specific issue, who actually and when had assaulted the opposite party no. 2, and hence, the Court opined that offences u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC were also not attracted in the instant case. In view of this, the petition was allowed, and the complaint case was quashed. Counsel for Applicant: Mohammad Zakir, Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party: Anand Kumar Singh, AGA Harshita. Case title – Maan Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another Case citation: Click Here ToRead/Download Order

Proceedings U/S 498A IPC By Second Wife Are Not Maintainable, Reiterates Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags