A Kerala High Court ruling has confirmed the conviction of a Muslim man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty and harassment of his Hindu wife over dowry demands, despite the marriage being deemed “irregular” under Muslim personal law.
In a recent judgment, Justice Johnson John dismissed the defendant’s claim that Section 498A was inapplicable due to the lack of a valid marriage. The Court emphasized that the couple lived as husband and wife, registered their marriage agreement, and exchanged garlands, which sufficed under the law to establish the union for the purposes of Section 498A.
The Court clarified that, under Sunni Law, the marriage was irregular, not void, supporting the trial court’s earlier findings. Justice John cited Supreme Court precedents, stating that individuals in such marital arrangements cannot escape legal consequences for dowry harassment by claiming an invalid marriage.
The case dates back to October 2000, when the interfaith couple married. By May 2002, the wife had consumed acid and died, allegedly due to sustained dowry-related harassment. Her stepfather’s complaint led to an investigation under Section 304B (dowry death) and other charges. The trial court acquitted the husband of dowry death and abetment to suicide but found him guilty under Section 498A, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
On appeal, the husband argued that the delay in filing the first information report (FIR) and the lack of evidence of a valid marriage invalidated his conviction. However, the Court found the delay justified due to the family’s socio-economic constraints and the mother’s continuous hospital vigil.
The Court noted testimonies from the victim’s mother and stepfather, which detailed the dowry demands and the severe physical and mental abuse inflicted upon the wife. Despite the lack of evidence of harassment immediately before her death, the Court upheld the conviction based on the established pattern of cruelty.
Justice John concluded that the trial court’s conviction and sentence were appropriate, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the husband’s three-year sentence.
Advocate Biju Hariharan represented the husband, while Public Prosecutor Sanal P Raj appeared for the State.
