KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANLAM versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 157 · Decided: 29-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 157 
KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANlAM 
A 
v 
STATE OF A.P. 
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2009 
APRIL 29. 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.482 ...;. 
B 
Proceedings uls. 498-A /PC - Accused seeking quashing 6f C 
the proceedings on the ground that s.49BA was not.applicable 
as he being an already married man, complainantwas not his 
legally wed wife - Dismissal of petition on the ground that· . 
disputed questions of facts involved- On appeal, held: Petition 
was rightly dismissed. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498 and 3048 - Applicability of -
D 
To the accused not legally wed - Held: Applicable to the person 
who enters into marital relationship and under the· colour of 
such proclaimed status of husband subjects the woman 
concerned to cruelty - Purposive construction has to come 
into play in such cases - Interpretation otherwise would defeat E 
the object of the legislations introducing these provisions -
Interpretations of statutes. 
Interpretation of statutes - Purposive construction -
Heydon's Rule - Applicability of 
Words and Phrases - 'Husband', 'Marriage' and 'Dowry' 
- Meaning of in the context of Penal Code, 1860. 
~ 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted u/s.498A IPC. He 
filed petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings 
F 
on the ground that as he was already married, his marriage G 
with the complainant was not legal and hence s.498A was 
not applicable in his case. High Court dismissed the 
petition holding that the case involved disputed questions 
of fact. Hence the present appeal. 
1~ 
H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the court · 
HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in holding that 
disputed questions of fact are involved and the application 
u/s. 482 CrPC has been rightly rejected. There is no scope 
for interference with the order of the High Court. [Para 25] , 
B [17 4-C-D] 
: 
2.1 The concept of marriage to constitute the relation- · 
ship of 'husband' and 'wife' may require strict interpre-
tation where claims for civil rights, right to property etc. 
may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different 
C perception cannot be an anatheme when the question of 
curbing a social evil is concerned. [Para 10] [166-8-C] 
Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram 
Adhav and Anr. AIR 1988 SC 644 - reffered to. 
' 
D 
2.2 The evil sought to be curbed u/ss. 494, 498A and 
3048 IPC are distinct and separate from the persons 
committing the offending acts and there could be no 
impediment in law to liberally construe the words or 
expressions relating to the persons committing the 
E offence so as to rope in not only those validly married but 
also any one who has undergone some or other form of 
marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position 
of husband to live, cohabitate and exercise authority as 
such husband over another woman. [Para 8] [165-A-C] 
F 
2.3. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal 
scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid 
marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then 
the purpose for which Sections 498A and 3048-IPC and 
Section 1138 of Evidence Act, 1872 were introduced 
G cannot be lost sight of. Legislations enacted witlT some· 
policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in 
society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit 
positively reqlltres to be interpreted with certain element 
of realism too· and not merely pedantically or hyper 
H technically. The obvious objective was . to prevent 
I ' 
• 
KOPPISETII SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V. 
159 
STATE OF A.P . 
harassment to a woman who enters into a marital A 
relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim 
of the greed for money. [Para 17) [169-B-D] 
2.4 A person who enters into a marital arrangement 
cannot be allowed to take a shelter behind a smokescreen 
to contend that since there was no valid marriage the 8 
question of dowry does not arise. Such legalistic niceties 
would destroy the purpose of the provisions. Such 
hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage 
harassment to a woman over demand of money. The 
legislative intent is clear from the fact that it is not only C 
the husband but also his relations who are covered by 
Section 498A. [Para 17) [169-D-F] 
2.5 Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with 
legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can 0 
it be said that legislature which was conscious of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.