JOHN IDICULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises in this case. Can the so-called "second wife" of the husband who married her during the subsistence of his earlier legal marriage, be treated as "the relative of the husband", for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) If so, under what circumstances Will an offence under Section 498A of IPC lie against such a "second wife" if she inflicts cruelty on the legally-wedded wife of the husband.

(2.) Here are the relevant factual details, as unfurled from the records: second respondent herein filed a complaint/Annexure-I against the petitioners as accused 1 and 2, and also against four other members of the husband's family as accused 3 to 6 alleging offences under Sections 498A, 494 and 34 of IPC before the Magistrate's Court. The complaint was forwarded by the lower court to Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Police after investigation, registered a crime and filed charge sheet Annexure-D against accused 1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 498A, 494 and 34 IPC. But, the Court below did not take cognizance of offences under Section 494 IPC. Specific instances of matrimonial cruelty are narrated in the complaint. Hence, the accused are proceeded against only under Sections 498A and 34 IPC.

(3.) According to Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, an offence under Section 498A IPC will lie only against the husband and/or 'the relative of the husband' of a woman. But, the second petitioner who is not a legally-wedded wife as per the allegations in the complaint itself cannot be treated as 'the relative of the husband' and hence she cannot be held liable for offence under Section 498A IPC. To understand the depth of the above contention, it is necessary to examine the language of the section first. Section 498A of IPC reads as follows: