SSD v. State of Maharashtra, 2026

The complainant woman was first married in 2004.

She separated from her first husband in 2007, but the marriage was never legally dissolved.

Despite the subsistence of her first marriage, she registered herself as an "unmarried spinster" on a matrimonial website.

Through the matrimonial website, she met another man and married him in September 2015 without disclosing her existing marriage.

The second husband was employed in Australia and regularly transferred money to the complainant's bank account.

The second husband's mother also provided the complainant with gifts and financial assistance despite not residing with the couple.

The complainant alleged that her second husband's family demanded dowry, sought a flat, refused to assist her in obtaining an Australian visa, and subjected her to cruelty.

She further alleged that a friend of the second husband supported the alleged unlawful dowry demands.

The second husband's family contended that the complainant frequently created disturbances, including visiting the husband's workplace in Australia and quarrelling with family members after travelling to Dubai without informing them.

The petitioners also alleged that the complainant and her relatives demanded ₹25 lakh as alimony and threatened to file false criminal cases if the demand was not met.

Based on the complainant's allegations, an FIR under Section 498A IPC was registered against the second husband's mother, siblings, and friend.

The petitioners approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioners.

The Court held that Section 498A IPC applies only where the accused is the husband or a relative of the husband within the meaning of the provision.

It observed that since the complainant's first marriage was legally subsisting, her subsequent marriage could not confer the legal status of husband upon the second man for the purposes of Section 498A IPC.

Consequently, the second husband's mother, siblings, and friend could not be regarded as relatives of the husband under the provision.

The Court noted that the complainant had concealed the existence of her first marriage while registering herself as an unmarried spinster on a matrimonial website.

The Bench found that the complainant had simultaneously pursued legal proceedings concerning both marriages, demonstrating lack of bona fides.

The Court observed that the allegations suggested an attempt to pressurise the second husband and his family into paying ₹25 lakh as alimony.

It emphasised that Section 498A IPC, being a social welfare legislation, cannot be misused as an instrument of harassment or personal vendetta.

The Court held that permitting prosecution in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the criminal justice system.

Exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the FIR against the second husband's mother, brother, sisters, and friend.

The judgment clarifies the statutory interpretation of Section 498A IPC, holding that its applicability depends upon the existence of a legally recognised marital relationship.

The Court reaffirmed that criminal liability under Section 498A IPC cannot be extended beyond the express language of the statute by treating persons connected to an invalid marriage as "relatives of the husband."

The decision highlights that legal status, rather than social perception or factual cohabitation, determines the scope of criminal liability under the provision.

The Court placed considerable emphasis on the complainant's alleged suppression of material facts, indicating that litigants approaching the court must act with candour and good faith.

By invoking Section 482 CrPC, the High Court reiterated that its inherent jurisdiction exists to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The judgment underscores that beneficial legislation must be interpreted to protect genuine victims while simultaneously guarding against its misuse for personal or collateral purposes.

The ruling also serves as a reminder that allegations under Section 498A IPC must satisfy the statutory requirements before criminal prosecution can proceed against family members.

Although the Court made strong observations regarding the complainant's conduct, the central legal principle emerging from the decision is that the statutory ingredients of Section 498A IPC were not fulfilled because the complainant's first marriage continued to subsist.

The judgment is likely to serve as an important precedent in cases involving prosecutions arising out of void or legally ineffective marriages, particularly where proceedings are initiated against relatives of the alleged second spouse.