In a significant legal development, a division bench of the Chandigarh High Court, comprising Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput, has issued a ruling asserting that a complaint or FIR filed by a man’s second wife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) would not be tenable.
The court’s decision drew heavily on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007). In this landmark case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage with a first wife is null and void. Consequently, the top court had quashed the conviction of the appellant for the offense under Section 498-A IPC.
The matter before the Chandigarh High Court stemmed from a petition filed by three individuals seeking the court’s direction to quash a case filed against them under Section 498-A IPC. The complainant, a woman who married a man in 2018 already in a marital union, alleged harassment and cruelty by her husband, his first wife, and other family members. In response, she filed a case in 2021 under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
During the proceedings before a single-judge bench, a conflict with earlier decisions, including Shivcharan Lal Verma, was identified. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice to address the question of whether a complaint or FIR by a second wife under Section 498-A IPC is tenable.
The Chief Justice referred the matter to a division bench, which, after careful consideration, concluded that there was no conflict between the decisions in question. The first matter dealt with a case under Section 498-A IPC by a man’s second wife, while the second matter concerned the applicability of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In light of this, the division bench ruled that a case filed by a second wife under Section 498-A IPC would not be maintainable. The court has directed the matter to be returned to the single-judge bench for a decision on the petitioners’ plea to quash the case against them.
This ruling brings clarity to the legal landscape surrounding complaints by second wives under Section 498-A IPC and underscores the importance of consistent interpretation of legal precedents.
CASE TITLE: SUMAN SHARMA AND 2 OTHERS V. STATE AND 2 OTHERS
NAME: GAYATHRI MANOJ, BBA, LLB(HONS) , PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments