Introduction

Wedlock, often known as matrimony, is a societal endorsement of two people’s relationship that is commonly considered as the definition of marriage. This union aids in outlining the rights and responsibilities of the two persons joining together, as well as those of their offspring and in-laws.

The sacred institution of marriage, on the other hand, has endured for generations and has ingested different twisted interpretations of the same. to make them right and, as a result, to ensure that no innocent life suffers. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s laws and precedents, which are the most instructive, are among the many laws and precedents that have been introduced by numerous courts. Adultery, abandonment, and cruelty are just a few of the wrongdoings that are known to constitute crimes against marriage or matrimonial offences.

Despite the numerous protective laws created by the law and actions taken by those who uphold law and order in society, instances of matrimonial offences continue to climb gradually and unabated. More and more women are being added to the list of those who have been the victims of these legal offences every day.

The majority of these occurrences go unreported, which is even worse, because society is unwilling to admit its morbid aspects and victim-shaming. When combined with instability and an unclear future, the situation worsens. Women in particular are made to have little to no faith in the law by society. They typically get terrified of the protracted court disputes and the enormous sums of money required to support them.

The plaintiff who is alleging the offences bears the burden of proof (BoP). It’s crucial to demonstrate that the aforementioned marital offences constitute grounds for divorce when making petitions for financial relief both during and after the marriage in magistrates’ courts.

Offenses Associated with Marriage

Marriage-related offences are covered by Sections 493 to 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (IPC). These laws cover the several facets of marriage and the resulting offences. The Cruelty Law, often known as Section 498-A, is the most well-known of these. This law attempts to give female victims of cruelty and domestic abuse significant protection, together with The Domestic Violence Act (Passed in 2005). The fundamental right to life and dignity, guaranteed by the Indian Constitution to every citizen, was noted to be violated in a growing number of situations, leading to the observation that such legislation was required.

In addition, it was made clear that cruelty was a significant reason for divorce.

Chapter XX also contains the following sections: Mock weddings (Section 493);

• Bigamy (494 and 495 Sections);
• Forcible Marriage (Section 496)
• Adultery (497 Section);
• Elopement in violation of Section 498

Cohabitation after tricking someone into thinking they are getting married

Every male who tricks a woman into engaging in sexual activity with him under the pretence that she is his wife is subject to Section 493. The Indian Penal Code imposes a fine and a ten-year prison sentence for this offence. For a long period, policymakers have engaged in spirited discussion about this clause.

Remarriage while a husband or wife is still alive

Bigamy, according to Section 494, is defined as remarrying when a spouse is still alive (read with Section 50 of the Evidence Act and Section 198 (1)(c) of CrPC).

However, the clause stipulates the following exceptions to Section 494 of the IPC: (a) If the first marriage has been declared null and unlawful by a court with competent authority;

(b) If the first spouse has been continually absent for seven years and hasn’t been heard from, as long as the information is shared with the individual getting married for a second time.

Bigamy is the legal name for the offence described above. Either spouse may contract it and pass it on to the other.

Sections 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 108 of the Evidence Act, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the famous case of Smt. Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India & Ors (1995) must all be cited in order to understand the aforementioned law. This case established the prohibition against the practise of securing a second marriage by conversion to Islam while keeping the prior marriage intact. Invoking Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, the judgement discusses bigamy, the discrepancy between existing personal laws regarding marriage, and other issues. It was a significant ruling that demonstrated the need for a uniform civil code.

Keeping the past marriage a secret before getting married later

In accordance with Section 495, a person who conceals their prior marriage from the person they are getting married to faces a ten-year prison sentence and a fine. It is a

non-cognizable offence that is subject to bail, and a first-rate magistrate will preside over the trial.

Performing a wedding ceremony fraudulently without having a valid, legal marriage

Anyone who dishonestly, coupled with a fraudulent motive, goes through the wedding ceremony while knowing that he is not therefore legitimately married is subject to a jail term of up to seven years and a fine under Section 496.

Adultery

A person who had sexual contact with the wife of another man without that man’s consent or knowledge was previously subject to a jail sentence of up to five years, with or without a fine. The man would have committed the crime of adultery if it had not been rape. While this was happening, the wife would not be held accountable for aiding and abetting.

It is significant to note that while this statute has now been decriminalised, it still serves as a solid justification for divorce.

Luring a married lady into having sex without her consent

Anyone who removes, conceals, detains, or entices away a woman who is and whom he knows or has cause to believe to be the wife of any other man with the intention that she may have illicit intercourse with any person faces a two-year prison sentence, with or without a fine.

At the moment of the marriage, there should have been deception and fraudulent purpose.

The following are Sections 493 and 496’s key components:

The wife must have been mislead by the accused in order for her to believe she is legally married to the accused when she is not.

Mens rea is thus a crucial element in each of these sections. In Sections 493 and 496, the terms “deceit,” “dishonestly,” and “fraudulent aim” have been employed. This means that in both cases, the woman is duped by the man into thinking they are married while the male is still aware that they are not.

Subhransu Sekhar Samantray v. The State (2002) was a landmark case in which the Orissa High Court argued that the prosecutrix’s admission that she had resisted the accused’s advances but had yielded to them once he declared her his wife and applied vermillion to her head and claimed he would accept her status in his life publicly once he obtained employment was sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the Penal Code.

“The proof of sexual intercourse needs to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case as direct evidence may rarely be shown,” the court stated in Kashuri v. Ramaswamy (1978).

In Alamgir v. State of Bihar (1958), the court stated that “if a man knowingly goes away with the wife of another in such a way to deprive the husband of his control over her, with the intent to have illicit intercourse, then it would constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 498.” This case is regarded as a landmark decision regarding Section 498.

In the case of Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P. (2002), the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the question of cruelty by one person toward another is primarily a factual one and is quite subjective in character. The impact of complaints, accusations, or taunts that constitute cruelty on a person depends on a variety of victim characteristics, including sensitivity, socioeconomic status, education, etc.

The court went on to explain that each case must be handled on an individual basis and that mental cruelty differs from person to person depending on factors such as: • the degree of sensitivity, • courage, and • endurance to resist such cruelty.

However, a major complaint of Indian laws pertaining to matrimonial offences has been that women abuse these rules since these improvements have been included into the legislation during the past 20 years. Numerous groups, including the police, politicians, and even justices of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, have frequently made this accusation.

The misuse claim is filed specifically against Section 498A as well as the dowry death offence under Section 304B. In the seminal decision of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others (2005), decided less than ten years ago, the Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the provision was to curb the dowry scourge.

But numerous examples have since come to light in which the complaints were submitted with a twisted intent and were not made in good faith.

Unfavorable, unwelcome media attention can occasionally make things worse. However, the 243rd Legislation Commission’s Report, which was published in August 2012, noted that as there is a greater social interest at stake, the misuse of the law does not constitute a reason to invalidate the provision.

Thus, the issue at hand is what corrective actions should be made to stop this misuse of well-intentioned law. There is no doubt that the constitutionality and intra vires nature of the law do not give anyone the right to harass others out of personal animosity. Legislators must therefore research strategies for dealing appropriately with baseless complaints or accusations.

In a case from less than ten years ago, Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that, with particular reference to Section 498A, no arrest should be made right away in cases where the accused is allegedly guilty of crimes that are both cognizable and non-bailable. The Court also established clear guidelines for police officers to follow when making arrests under the section due to an increase in the number of seeming criminal offences.

CONCLUSION

The nature of matrimonial offences is multidimensional and multi-causal. With a straitjacket approach, it is impossible to fairly address them. It goes beyond socioeconomic level and culture. However, there are undoubtedly underlying factors that are common. The gender-specific nature of these offences makes it clear that the rising cases of matrimonial offences against women are strongly rooted in indifference and negligence, which are essentially the outcome of widespread acceptance of men’s supremacy over women.

Among the many types of crimes against women that are still committed today, cruelty is perhaps the most frequent. These crimes include bigamy, adultery, criminal elopement, and other marital offences. Courts have widened the definition’s scope throughout time to encompass a variety of situations. If certain minimal conditions are met, the laws addressing matrimonial offences have been written in a way that creates a presumption against the accused.

However, there is still a long way to go before such rules are used to their full potential. These laws still need to be clarified, and conflicting precedents still need to be eliminated. In order to address these issues, it is essential to take this action. Since these offences include a serious conflict of interest, they must be handled in a way that causes the least amount of harm to the family and its associated factors, namely the children. Women should start speaking out against such injustices now that the moment is right. Every Indian citizen is required by Article 51A(e) of the Constitution to repudiate actions that are disrespectful to women’s dignity. Additionally, there is a need for broad legal reform to safeguard a wife’s bodily and emotional integrity from her husband’s violent behaviour.