Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Cohabitation Caused by Man Deceitfully Inducing a Belief of Lawful Marriage (Ss. 493 and 496 IPC)
Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offences relating to the institution of marriage. These offences relating to marriage are listed between Section 493-498A of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter XX-A containing only one section (s.498A) dealing with cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives to coerce her and her parents to meet material greed of dowry was added to the IPC by the Second amendment Act,1983. In this article, we shall discuss Section 493 IPC.
These sections serve as a legal safeguard against actions that can cause harm, deception, or injustice within the institution of marriage. By defining and punishing such offences, the law aims to maintain the integrity of marriages and promote fairness, trust, and equality between spouses. The six offences punishable herein are:
- S. 493: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage
- S. 494: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.
- S. 495: Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted
- S. 496: Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage
- S. 497: Adultery
- S. 498: Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman
Section 493 IPC:
Cohabitation Caused by a Man Deceitfully Inducing a Belief of Lawful Marriage:
Every man who by deceit causes any woman ;:who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Ingredients of Section 493:
- There must be a intentional deceit caused by man.
Thus, to qualify as a violation of Section 493:
- The man must intentionally deceive his partner by inducing a belief of a lawful marriage. The deception may be by false representations, fraudulent promises, or misleading actions that lead the victim to believe they are legally married.
- The deceived partner must begin living together with the man (cohabitation) under the belief that they are lawfully married. It involves sharing a domestic environment, including residing in the same house or apartment, and engaging in a marital relationship.
Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, triable by Magistrate of First Class
Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Case Laws:
In Samman v. State of M.P case, the Court held that the offence under this Section can also be punished as rape under Section 375 (4).
In Arun Singh v. State of UP, 10 February, 2020 case, the Respondent’s daughter’s marriage was fixed with the Appellant (Accused) and was scheduled. After that they started going for outings together. One day the Appellant induced Jyoti to the room and established a physical relationship with her. Later on, he started demanding a dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs. On coming to know that the marriage of the appellant was settled with some other girl for handsome of money the FIR was lodged under Section 493 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the Appellant. The Court said that the ingredients of Section 493 IPC are missing. The allegations do not even cull out any inducement of belief in the victim i.e., Jyoti that she is lawfully married to the appellant and on account of this deceitful misstatement, the victim i.e., Jyoti cohabitated with the accused. So, it was declared that the allegations made in FIR do not fall within Section 493 of IPC.
In Raghunath Pandhy v. State of Orissa, 1957 case, the Court held that in order to establish deception it must be proved that the accused either dishonestly or fraudulently concealed certain facts or made faux-assertion knowing it to be false.
In Dayanidhi Nayak v. State, 2002 CriLJ 371 case, where the accused on promise to marry carried on sexual intercourse with informant for a year and later refused to marry her after she became pregnant. However, the informant neither in her FIR nor in her statement u/s 161 CrPC alleged that she was induced by the accused. It was held that the prerequisite of deception resulting to consent of woman for sexual intercourse was not made out and therefore, framing of charges u/s 493 against the accused was wrong.
In Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, 9 April, 2015 case, where a man obtained the ex-parte divorce decree and did not inform his wife about it. Due to this matrimonial relationship ended and the wife was not known about this fact. She continued to cohabit with him as she thought that she was still married to him. The wife came to know about this fact when her husband married another woman. The court held that it cannot be said that the husband deceived his wife to believe that she is lawfully married to him and held that the man is not liable for the offence under Section 493 of IPC. The Court directed the compounding of complaint made by the appellant with reference to Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
In Amruta Gadtia v Trilochan Pradhan, (1993) Cr LJ 1022 (Ori) case, the Court observed that the woman was aware of the fact that she was not lawfully married to the man she was cohabitating with and then also she allowed the man to had sexual intercourse with her. The Court held the man not liable for the offense under Section 493. The Court cleared that cohabitation or sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not lawfully married is not the only criterion to punish a man of this offense. All the ingredients, including false belief in which woman is kept by such man, shall be fulfilled in order to punish him under this Section.
In Moideen Kutty Haji v Kunhikoya, AIR 1987 Ker 184 case, the Court observed that according to this Section a man is not liable only for cohabiting or having sexual intercourse with a woman not lawfully married to him. For the liability under this Section, it must be proved that such man has induced the woman to cohabitate or have sexual intercourse with him in the belief that she is lawfully married to him.
Section 496 IPC:
Marriage Ceremony Fraudulently Gone Through Without Lawful Marriage:
Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
By the language of the Section, it is very clear this offence can be committed by a man or woman.
Ingredients of Section 496:
- A man or a woman must have dishonest intentions for the marriage.
Thus, to qualify as a violation of Section 496:
- The person involved in the offence must have the intention to deceive others, such as family, friends, or authorities, into believing they are legally married and the other partner of the marriage.
- The person involved in the offence must have the knowledge that the marriage does not constitute a valid marriage.
A fraudulent marriage ceremony typically involves:
- There is a deception of others, such as family, friends, or authorities, into believing they are legally married and the other partner of the marriage.
- The marriage ceremony is organized such that it is complete with witnesses, a marriage officiant, and other traditional elements, giving the appearance of a legitimate marriage.
- It also include forging marriage certificates, altering dates, or misrepresenting the identities of the individuals involved.
Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, triable by Magistrate of First Class
Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Case Laws:
In Shiekh Altmuddin v Emperor, 44 Ind Cas 321 case, where the marriage ceremony which is gone through is invalid by the reason of existence of the previous marriage, then Section 496 shall not be applicable. It is subjected as an offence of bigamy which is dealt with under Section 494 of the IPC.
In Kailash Singh v State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri. LJ 1005 case,where an accused did a second marriage during the pendency of appeal against the decree of divorce. However, he did not conceal the fact from the girl. In this case, the court held that the accused is not liable for the offence under section 496 IPC as the mens rea is an essential element for 496. The accused did not have dishonest intentions.
In KAN Subrahmanyam v. J Ramalakshmi, (1971) Mad LJ (Cr) 604 case, the Court observed that such deceitful intention must exist on the part of the husband at the time of marriage. This means if the husband is having no deceitful intention at the time of marriage and he believes that he is lawfully marrying the woman then he would not be liable under Section 496. To attract the offense under this Section, a man must know at the time of marriage that such marriage is not valid.
Section 493 vis-à-vis Section 496:
Under s. 493, the offense consists in inducing a woman to believe that she is legally married to the accused by deceit and making her to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with the accused in that belief. Under s. 496, the offence consists in dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention going through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married. Therefore, the offence under s. 496 does not require deception, cohabitation or sexual intercourse as sine qua non. Under s. 496 the offence can be committed by either man or woman, while under s. 493, it can be committed only by a man. In both cases, however, it is necessary that a form of marriage which is not valid must have been gone through with a fraudulent intention.