Live-in partner can be charged with dowry death: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad high court has ruled that to establish the offense of dowry demand or dowry death, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the victim and her partner were living together as husband and wife at the relevant time. The court emphasised that it is irrelevant whether the victim was legally married to the accused.

With these observations, the court rejected the claim of the accused male partner that since the victim was his live-in partner, the provision of dowry death would not apply in this case.

While dismissing the petition of accused male partner Adarsh Yadav, Justice Raj Beer Singh upheld the decision of the sessions court of Prayagraj dated April 30, 2024, which rejected the application of the accused, for discharge in a dowry death case. The petition was filed under Section 482 (inherent powers of the high court) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Declining to accept the pleas of the petitioner, the court observed, “In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B (dowry death) and 498-A (harassment for dowry) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is sufficient to show that the victim and the accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point in time. In the instant case, for the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the deceased does not fall within the ambit of a legally wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that the applicant and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point in time.”

According to the husband’s counsel, the marriage of the deceased had previously taken place with one Rohit Yadav, and she had not obtained a divorce from her husband before marrying the accused. In fact, later, the deceased started living with the applicant in a live-in relationship, and since no marriage took place between the deceased and the applicant, no offense of dowry death (Section 304-B) is made out.

On the other hand, the state counsel opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report, it was clearly mentioned that after the marriage of the deceased to Rohit Yadav, she was divorced by him, and thereafter, the marriage of the deceased to the applicant took place through the court. There are allegations that the deceased was harassed by the applicant on account of dowry. The deceased committed suicide at the premises of the applicant.

It was further submitted by the state counsel that whether the marriage between the deceased and the applicant was lawful or not is a question of fact and can only be examined during the trial.

Dismissing the petition, the court, in its decision dated September 20, stated, “In view of the aforesaid facts, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the provisions of Section 304-B IPC are not attracted has no force. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court has considered all relevant facts of the matter, and the application filed by the applicant for discharge was rejected by a reasoned order.”