Matrimony or wedlock is a culturally recognized social sanction of connection between two persons, according to a widely accepted understanding of marriage. This union aids in the establishment of rights and obligations between two persons who are marrying, as well as their children and in-laws.
The sacred institution of marriage, on the other hand, has existed for generations and has swallowed countless perverted versions of the same. To remedy them and, as a result, ensure that no innocent lives are lost, various courts have introduced various statutes and precedents, the most illuminating of which come from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Adultery, desertion, and cruelty, to name a few, are acknowledged to be marital infractions.
Marital Offences
Sections 493 through 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deal with marriage-related offences (IPC). These laws address the many facets of marriage, as well as the resulting offences. The Cruelty Law, often known as Section 498-A, is the most well-known of these. This statute, coupled with the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, attempts to give female victims of cruelty and domestic violence significant protection. With the number of cases of this sort steadily increasing, it was determined that such legislation was required to ensure that each citizen’s Fundamental Right to Life and Dignity, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, was respected. Furthermore, cruelty was deemed to be a significant reason for a marriage’s divorce.
Other sections of chapter XX include mock marriages (Section 493), bigamy (Section 494 and 495), fraud marriage (Section 496), adultery (Section 497), criminal elopement (Section 498), etc.
- Cohabitation after deceiving a woman into believing she is married to him: Section 493 applies to any man who deceives a woman into having sexual intercourse with him under the guise of being married to him. The Indian Penal Code punishes this with a ten-year prison sentence and a fine. For a long period, this section has been the subject of fierce dispute among legislators.
- Marrying again during the spouse’s lifetime: Section 494 stipulates that marrying again during the spouse’s lifetime is bigamy (read with Section 50 of the Evidence Act and Section 198(1)(c) of the CrPC).
Exceptions to Section 494 of the IPC are provided in this section:
(a) If the first marriage has been declared void by a court or by holding competent authority
(b) If the prior spouse has been missing for seven years and has not been heard from, provided that the facts are told to the person with whom the second marriage is contracted.
- Concealing a past marriage before getting married: Section 495 provides for a ten-year prison sentence and a fine for anyone who conceals a previous marriage with someone they are getting married to. It is a non-cognizable, bailable offence, with a first-class Magistrate presiding over the trial.
- Fraudulent conduct of wedding ceremony without a legitimate, genuine marriage: Under Section 496, anyone who dishonestly, with a fraudulent intent, conducts a wedding ceremony despite knowing that he is not lawfully married faces a prison sentence of up to seven years, as well as a fine.
- Adultery: Previously, Section 497 allowed for a five-year prison sentence, with or without a fine, for a person who had sexual intercourse with another man’s wife without that man’s agreement or connivance. If it hadn’t been rape, the man would have been charged with adultery. Meanwhile, the wife would not be held liable as an abettor in such a case. It’s worth noting that while this statute has subsequently been decriminalised, it still serves as a good basis for divorce.
- Enticing a married woman for illicit sexual relations: Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) imposes a two-year prison sentence, with or without a fine, on anyone who takes, conceals, detains, or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe is the wife of another man, with the intent that she may engage in illicit sexual relations with anyone. At the moment of the marriage, there should be deception and fraudulent intent. The basic elements of Sections 493 and 496 are that the accused must have deceived the woman, leading her to believe that she is lawfully married to him when she is not.
Landmark Judgments
The Orissa High Court argued in Subhransu Sekhar Samantaray v. The State (2002) that the prosecutrix’s statement that she had resisted the establishment of sexual relations with the accused, but that when he put vermillion on her head and declared her his wife, and alleged that he would accept her status in his life publicly after getting a job, she submitted herself to his advances, was sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the ACT.
The court declared in the case of Kashuri v. Ramaswamy (1978) that the proof of sexual intercourse needs to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case as direct evidence may rarely be shown.
“If a man knowingly goes away with the wife of another in such a way to deprive the husband of his control over her, with the intent to have illicit intercourse, then it would constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 498”, the court said in Alamgir v. State of Bihar (1958).
In the case of Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P. (2002), the Supreme Court held that the issue of cruelty perpetrated by one against another is primarily a question of fact and is very subjective. The impact of complaints, accusations, or taunts that constitute to cruelty on a person is dependent on a number of circumstances, including the victim’s sensitivity, socioeconomic background, education, and so on. The court went on to say that mental cruelty differs from person to person, based on the degree of sensitivity, courage, and endurance to bear such cruelty, and that each case must be handled on an individual basis.
However, as these reforms have been incorporated into Indian law during the last two decades, a recurring criticism levelled at rules dealing with matrimonial offences in India has been that women abuse them. Various sectors, including the police, politicians, and even justices of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, have all made this charge.
The misuse charge is levelled mostly against Section 498A, as well as the dowry death charge in Section 304B. In the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others (2005), the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the provision was to eliminate the dowry threat. However, numerous cases have now come to light in which the complaints were not filed in good faith and were filed for a nefarious purpose.
Unfavourable, unwelcome media attention might add to the agony. However, the 243rd Legislation Commission’s Report, released in August 2012, stated that the misuse of the law is not a reason to invalidate the provision because it affects a greater public interest.
The question is what steps should be done to prevent such misapplication of well-intentioned legislation. The law’s constitutionality and intra vires character aren’t an excuse for people to harass others for personal gain. As a result, legislators must figure out how to deal with frivolous complaints or claims in an appropriate manner. Due to an increase in the number of seemingly false complaints, the Supreme Court declared in Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr (2014), with particular reference to Section 498A, that no arrest should be made immediately in the offences which are allegedly committed by the accused and the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, and went on to lay down crisp guidelines for police officers to follow relating to the arrests made under the section.
Conclusion
The nature of matrimonial offences is multi-causal and multi-dimensional. With a straitjacket approach, it is hard to justly confront them. It is not limited by culture or social level. There are, nevertheless, certain underlying common elements. The rise in matrimonial offences against women has its roots in indifference and negligence, which is primarily the result of widespread acceptance of men’s superiority over women, as evidenced by the gender specific nature of these offences.
Marital offences, such as bigamy, adultery, and criminal elopement, are among the many types of crimes committed against women today, with cruelty being the most common. Over time, courts have enlarged the definition’s scope to embrace a variety of situations. The regulations dealing with matrimonial offences have been written in such a way that if certain minimum prerequisites are met, the accused is presumed guilty.
However, there is still a long way to go before such regulations are fully utilized. There is still room for more clarity in these laws, as well as the elimination of conflicting precedents. In dealing with these issues, it is critical to do so. Because the nature of these offences involves a major conflict of interests, they must be dealt with in such a way that the family and its associated factors, such as children, suffer the least amount of harm.
This article is written by Nupoor Agarwal, 2nd year BBA LLB (Hons.) student of School of Law, NMIMS, Navi Mumbai during her internship with LeDroit India.
