Karnataka High Court
Prajith R v. XXX & ANR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021
Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
Decided On 16-06-2023
Facts of the case-
The 1st respondent, who is also the complainant, seeks to file a complaint against the petitioner, who is the sole accused. The complainant lodged the complaint on 10-11-2020, making specific allegations against the petitioner. According to the complainant’s account, she is married to a man named Jagadish. When she was eight months pregnant, her husband dropped her off at her parents’ house in Arakalgud, Hassan District. After two years, Jagadish returned to the matrimonial house and took the complainant and their daughter back to Bangalore. However, after staying together for about six months, Jagadish left the house and did not return for some time.
Due to this situation, the complainant had to find employment at Mariko Marketing Company. It was during her employment there that she came into contact with the petitioner. Allegedly, the petitioner promised to marry the complainant. The complainant informed the petitioner that she was five years older than him, but she was lured into a relationship with him based on his assurance of marriage. When the petitioner failed to fulfill his promise of marriage, the complainant filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 10.11.2020, accusing the petitioner of offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 507, and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner approaches this Court through the present petition in response to the registration of the crime against him.
Judgement
the court has dismissed the FIR filed by a married woman against a man, alleging that he deceived her by failing to fulfill his promise of marriage. Upon reviewing the records, the bench observed that the petitioner resided in Malaysia and regularly sent money to the complainant for her living expenses. The complainant claimed that this act established the man as her husband. Additionally, she accused him of ceasing communication with her.
The court pointed out that no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the petitioner was ever married to the complainant. The offense in question falls under Section 498A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), which deals with cruelty towards married women. Furthermore, the complainant admitted that she was already married and had a child from her current marriage.
The court found it perplexing that the petitioner could be considered the complainant’s husband when she was already married. The complainant did not mention obtaining a divorce decree from her previous husband in her objections. As long as the earlier marriage remained intact, it could not be claimed that the petitioner was her husband and responsible for the maintenance of the complainant and her daughter.
Regarding the monthly financial assistance provided by the petitioner to the woman, the bench clarified that merely sending money on some occasions does not establish an obligation for the petitioner to support them in the absence of a legal marital bond between the complainant and the petitioner.
Based on these considerations, the court decided to quash the complaint.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
