Kerala High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the convicts against the judgment of Trial Court sentencing them under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)on the ground that the marriage between the parties was not legal, the Single Judge Bench of Sophy Thomas, J. held that the marriage was valid because if there is some form of marriage, religious or customary, which has the colour of a legal marriage, then also the woman can seek protection under Section 498-A IPC.
Background:
The deceased , an 18-year-old girl, had fallen in love with the convict and become pregnant. But the parents of the convict forcibly made the deceased get an abortion When the parents of the deceased came to know about her love affair and abortion, the religious leaders of both communities mediated and decided to convert the deceased to Islam to marry her with the convict as per Muslim rites and custom. Thereafter, Nikah of the deceased and convictewas conducted and she started living with his family. In her marital home, the deceased was physically and mentally ill-treated and harassed for dowry, due to which she committed suicide in 2002 by consuming poison.
The Trial Court acquitted the four accused under Section 304-B and 306 of IPC but found them guilty under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and each of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the convicts preferred this appeal.
Analysis and Decision:
Regarding the contention of the convicts that the marriage was not valid, the Court noted that there is a clear statement from two witnesses that Nikah was conducted. . The Court mentioned that itis true that no records from the Mahal Committee are produced to prove the Nikah or its date. However, the Court noted that one of the aforesaid witnesses was the Executive Member of the Mahal Committee, and he is a responsible person to say about the conversion of the deceased and her Nikah with the convict. The Court also noted that there is nothing to show that the deceased was a minor at the time of Nikah since she waited 3.5 months to be married and,might have attained majority by that time.
The Court noted that the deceased accepted Islam and a Muslim name, and even her funeral was according to Muslim religious rites. So, even though there was no registration of marriage under secular law, marriage between the deceased and the convict was contracted as per Muslim Personal Law and it was acknowledged by both parties.
In order to reconcile the decisions of Moidutty Musliyar v. Sub Inspector, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4188 and Khaledur Rahman v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5833, with the facts of the case on hand, the Court stated that, when a particular act complained of, constitutes an offence under a special statute, that statute will prevail, and the personal law or customary law shall stand abrogated to the extent of its inconsistency. The Court reiterated that when the provisions of a statute are repugnant to, or contrary to the customary law or personal law, in the absence of any specific exclusion of the said customary or personal law, from the statutory provisions, the statute will prevail.
Drawing a distinction from the aforementioned cases, the Court stated that in this case marriage was never called in question under any special statute such as the Child Marriage Act or any other special enactment inviting penal provisions.
The Court relied on the case of Narayanan v. State of Kerala1, and stated that if there is some form of marriage, religious or customary, which has the colour of a legal marriage, then also the woman can seek protection under Section 498A, though later, for some reason, that marriage is found to be invalid in the eye of law. The Court also adopted the spirit of the decision in the case of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199 and rejected the contention that there was no legal marriage between the parties.
Thus, the Court held that when a marriage, which is valid under the customary or personal law, and any act committed within that marriage are called in question as it constitute an offence under a special statute, inviting penal consequences, no doubt, the special law will prevail, in spite of legality of that marriage under the customary or personal law. But the marriage under the customary or personal law, which is otherwise valid, has to be treated as valid between parties to that marriage for all practical purposes, unless and until it is challenged by any of the parties to that marriage, and declared void on any valid grounds.
Since the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the convicts under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the Court found no reason to interfere with the same.
Regarding the sentence, the Court noted that an 18-year-old girl was driven to commit suicide because of the ill-treatment and harassment by her husband and in-laws, so they are not entitled to receive benevolence under the Probation of Offenders Act. But, considering the fact that the convict was only 19 years old and the other convicts are his parents and brother, the Court modified and reduced the sentence of the convicts.
The Court reduced the sentence of the convict and his mother to simple imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 25,000 and reduced the sentence of the brother and father to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.10,000.
[X v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6852, decided on 05-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Advocate Sri Babu S Nair
For the respondent: Smt Seena C, Public Prosecutor
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Crl. MC No. 8999 of 2023
