(c) Critically examine the provisions relating to few major offences which fall under the 'offences against marriage' in the criminal law of India. Support your answer with case-law.

I. Deceitful Inducement to Believe in Lawful Marriage (IPC Section 493 / BNS Section 81)

This section addresses situations where a man, by deceit, causes a woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is his lawful wife and, in that belief, cohabits or has sexual intercourse with him. It aims to protect women from sexual exploitation under the false pretext of a valid marriage.

• Purpose: To criminalize the act of a man deceiving a woman into believing she is legally married to him to induce cohabitation or sexual relations, thereby safeguarding a woman's consent and dignity in marital relationships.
• Elements: The accused must have deceived the woman, leading her to believe she is lawfully married, and consequently, she cohabits or has sexual intercourse with him based on that false belief. The deceitful intention must exist at the time of inducing the belief of marriage.
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
• Critical Examination: This provision is crucial for protecting vulnerable women. However, establishing "deceit" and "belief of lawful marriage" can be complex.
• Case Law:
  • Abdul Khadar v. State of Mysore (1969): The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 493 where the accused induced a woman to cohabit under a false promise of marriage, leading her to believe she was his lawfully wedded wife.
  • Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand (2013): The court reiterated that the essence of Section 493 lies in the fraudulent inducement of a belief of lawful marriage, which then leads to cohabitation.

II. Bigamy (IPC Section 494 & 495 / BNS Section 82)

Bigamy refers to the offense of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife, where such a marriage is void due to the subsistence of a prior valid marriage. Section 495 enhances the punishment if the fact of the former marriage is concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted.

• Purpose: To uphold the principle of monogamy, which is a cornerstone of personal laws for most communities in India (e.g., Hindus, Christians, Parsis) and under the Special Marriage Act. It protects the legal and social status of the first spouse and family.
• Elements for Section 494:
  1. Existence of a prior valid marriage.
  2. One spouse of the first marriage is still alive.
  3. Contracting a second marriage, which is void by reason of its taking place during the life of the former spouse.
• Elements for Section 495: Adds the element of concealing the previous marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted.
• Punishment:
  • Section 494: Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
  • Section 495: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine (for concealment).
• Critical Examination:
  • Uneven Application: Bigamy laws are not uniformly applicable across all religious communities. Muslim personal law permits polygyny for men, leading to debates about uniformity and gender justice.
  • Burden of Proof: Proving the validity of both marriages, especially the second, can be challenging in court.
• Case Law:
  • Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965): The Supreme Court held that for bigamy under Section 494 IPC to be established, the second marriage must be a valid one according to the rites and ceremonies of the parties. A mere going through of ceremonies is not enough if the essential ceremonies are not performed.
  • Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995): The Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu man converting to Islam solely for the purpose of contracting a second marriage, without divorcing his first wife, would still be liable for bigamy under Section 494 IPC. This landmark judgment highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to address such disparities.
  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000): Reaffirmed the Sarla Mudgal judgment, emphasizing that religious conversions must be genuinely motivated by faith and not by legal convenience to circumvent bigamy laws.
  • Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padma Latha (2014): The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband who concealed his first marriage before entering into a second marriage, reiterating the gravity of the offense under Section 495.

III. Fraudulent Marriage Ceremony (IPC Section 496 / BNS Section 83)

This section criminalizes going through a marriage ceremony dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, knowing that one is not thereby lawfully married.

• Purpose: To punish individuals who exploit the trust of others by engaging in mock or invalid marriage ceremonies, often for financial gain or other ulterior motives.
• Elements: The person must dishonestly or with fraudulent intention go through a marriage ceremony, knowing that they are not thereby lawfully married.
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
• Critical Examination: This provision complements Section 493 by covering scenarios where the "ceremony" itself is fraudulent, not just the belief in lawful marriage. It often involves a perpetrator deliberately conducting a ceremony they know is not legally binding.
• Case Law:
  • Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971): This case dealt with false ceremonies performed for an unlawful purpose, falling within the ambit of Section 496.
  • K.A.N. Subrahmanyam v. J. Ramalakshmi (1971): It was observed that the fraudulent intention must exist at the time of performing the marriage ceremony.

IV. Adultery (IPC Section 497 - Decriminalized / BNS Section 84)

Previously, Section 497 IPC criminalized adultery, punishing a man who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband's consent or connivance. The wife was not punishable as an abettor.

• Historical Context: Section 497, dating back to 1860, reflected patriarchal notions, treating women as the property of their husbands and denying them agency.
• Decriminalization: In the landmark judgment of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional.
• Reasoning for Decriminalization:
  • Violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) by discriminating solely against men and treating women as mere chattel.
  • Violated Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) by differentiating on the basis of gender.
  • Violated Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by intruding into the private sphere of marriage and undermining women's dignity and autonomy.
• Current Status: Adultery is no longer a criminal offense for the general public in India. However, it remains a valid ground for divorce under various personal laws (e.g., Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act) and can still have implications in civil matters like maintenance and child custody. Notably, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, while not explicitly re-criminalizing adultery, retains a provision (Section 84) that punishes a man for enticing or taking away a married woman with criminal intent for illicit intercourse, which is similar in effect to the old Section 498 IPC (Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman).
• Case Law:
  • Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 497, arguing that Article 15(3) allowed for special provisions for women.
  • Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985): The Supreme Court again upheld Section 497, stating that it was designed to protect the sanctity of marriage.
  • Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): Overturned previous judgments, declaring Section 497 unconstitutional. This judgment marked a significant step towards gender equality and individual autonomy.

V. Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband (IPC Section 498A / BNS Section 85)

Introduced in 1983, Section 498A addresses the issue of marital cruelty, primarily aimed at protecting married women from harassment and violence within their matrimonial homes, especially in connection with dowry demands.

• Purpose: To combat the menace of dowry-related violence and harassment, and to provide legal recourse for women subjected to physical or mental cruelty by their husband or his relatives.
• Definition of Cruelty:
  • Any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical).
  • Harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or on account of failure to meet such demand.
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
• Critical Examination:
  • A Double-Edged Sword: While Section 498A was enacted with a laudable objective, it has faced significant criticism for its alleged misuse, leading to false accusations and harassment of husbands and their families.
  • High Acquittal Rates: The conviction rates for 498A cases are often low, which some argue indicates misuse.
  • Gender Bias: The provision is gender-specific, applicable only to women as victims. There have been demands for it to be made gender-neutral.
• Case Law:
  • Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005): The Supreme Court acknowledged the increasing misuse of Section 498A and called it "legal terrorism," emphasizing the need for safeguards against false complaints.
  • Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): The Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests in 498A cases, directing police not to automatically arrest the accused but to satisfy themselves of the necessity for arrest.
  • Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017): The Supreme Court issued further directions to prevent misuse, including the establishment of Family Welfare Committees to scrutinize complaints before police action. (However, parts of these directions were later diluted by the Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018), reiterating that a woman's testimony should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a close relative, and emphasizing that the creation of such committees cannot override statutory provisions.)
  • Digambar v. State of Maharashtra (2024): The Supreme Court reiterated that cruelty under Section 498A must be severe enough to drive the victim to suicide or inflict grave injury, cautioning against initiating proceedings with ulterior motives.
  • Karnataka High Court Ruling (2025): The Karnataka High Court ruled that Section 498A can apply even in cases of void or voidable marriages, or live-in relationships, if the woman was led to believe she was a wife and subjected to cruelty. This extends the protective ambit of the section.
  • Kerala High Court Ruling (2025): The Kerala High Court held that the absence of independent witnesses does not dilute cruelty allegations under Section 498A, as such offenses often occur within the privacy of matrimonial homes.

Table: Evolution of Key Marriage Offences in Indian Criminal Law

Offence (IPC Section)	Corresponding BNS Section (2023)	Key Features	Critical Examination/Evolution
Section 493: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage	Section 81	Man deceives woman into believing lawful marriage to cohabit/have sexual intercourse.	Essential for protecting women from exploitation; proving 'deceit' and 'belief' can be challenging.
Section 494: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife (Bigamy)	Section 82	Second marriage during subsistence of first, making it void.	Discriminatory application (Muslim men exempt); burden of proving validity of both marriages; focus on monogamy for most communities.
Section 495: Same offence with concealment of former marriage	Section 82 (enhanced punishment within)	Bigamy with concealment of first marriage from subsequent spouse.	Graver form of bigamy, acknowledges enhanced harm due to deception.
Section 496: Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage	Section 83	Dishonestly or fraudulently conducting a marriage ceremony, knowing it's not lawful.	Addresses mock marriages; intent to deceive is key.
Section 497: Adultery	Decriminalized (BNS Section 84 retains "enticing/detaining married woman")	Sexual intercourse by a man with another's wife without husband's consent (woman not punishable).	Decriminalized by Supreme Court in Joseph Shine (2018) as unconstitutional; now a civil ground for divorce. BNS 84 is reminiscent of old 498 IPC.
Section 498: Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman	Section 84	Enticing or detaining a married woman for illicit intercourse.	Reflects patriarchal views; debated for being outdated; BNS retains similar provision.
Section 498A: Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband	Section 85	Willful conduct or harassment by husband/relatives leading to grave injury, suicide, or dowry demand.	Vital for women's protection, but widely criticized for misuse; Supreme Court guidelines for arrest; demands for gender neutrality.

The transition from the IPC to the BNS reflects an ongoing effort to modernize Indian criminal law. While many provisions related to offences against marriage are retained with similar intent, the BNS aims to streamline and, in some areas, recontextualize these offenses in line with contemporary legal principles. For instance, the BNS introduces a new provision (Section 69) punishing sexual intercourse by deceitful means including false promise of marriage, which covers a broader range of situations than just deceit leading to belief in lawful marriage.