Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and Ors (2004)

Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and Ors is a landmark judgement that clarified the application of Section 498A and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The Supreme Court ruled that these provisions apply even when the woman is not legally married to the offender. Delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Doraiswamy Raju, the judgement expanded the protective umbrella for women suffering harassment and cruelty under pseudo-marital relationships.

Facts of Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and Ors

On 13th July 1998, Tagore Hospital informed the police that the appellant, Reema Aggarwal, had been admitted after consuming a poisonous substance. The appellant claimed to be married to the respondent, Anupam, and alleged harassment by him, his parents, and his brother for not bringing dowry.

Both the appellant and Anupam were in their second marriage. The first marriage of Anupam had not been legally dissolved.

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives) of IPC.

Decisions of Lower Courts in Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam and Ors

1. Trial Court:
   • Held that the victim must prove she was the legally married wife of the accused.
   • Ruled that since Anupam’s first marriage was not legally dissolved, the appellant was not his lawful wife. Hence, Section 498A was not applicable.
   • Additionally, ruled that the offence under Section 307 was also not made out.
2. Punjab and Haryana High Court:
   • Upheld the findings of the Trial Court, dismissing the appeal.
3. Supreme Court:
   • The matter was brought before the Supreme Court for further adjudication.

Issue Involved 

The primary issue in Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and Ors was:

Whether the offence under Section 304B (Dowry Death) of IPC can be made out in cases where the husband and wife are not legally married due to the second marriage of the accused?

Arguments Presented

Respondents’ Contention

• The respondents relied on the precedent set in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. The State of Maharashtra (1965). In that case, the court held that for an offence of bigamy (Section 494 IPC), the second marriage must be valid and duly solemnised according to law.
• The respondents argued that a similar strict interpretation should apply to Section 498A and Section 304B, as these provisions are contingent on the existence of a legal marital relationship.

Appellant’s Contention

• The appellant argued that Sections 498A and 304B aim to protect women from harassment and cruelty linked to dowry demands, irrespective of the legality of marriage.
• It was contended that a restrictive interpretation would defeat the purpose of these provisions and allow offenders to exploit legal loopholes.

Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and Ors Judgement

Distinction Between Sections 494 and 498A/304B

• The court in Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and Ors noted that Section 494 (Bigamy) revolves around the act of “marrying” and requires strict adherence to legal formalities.
• However, Section 498A and Section 304B focus on the harassment or cruelty faced by women within a marital or quasi-marital relationship. These provisions aim to address social evils like dowry harassment and are not bound by technicalities regarding the legality of marriage.

Liberal Interpretation

• The court emphasised that a liberal construction of these provisions was necessary to ensure the law’s purpose was not defeated.
• It observed that even a man who assumes the status of a husband—whether or not he is legally married—can subject a woman to cruelty and harassment. Such individuals should not escape legal accountability.

Social Context and Legislative Intent

• The court in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and Ors highlighted the underlying legislative intent of Sections 498A and 304B, which is to protect women from cruelty and harassment tied to dowry demands.
• The law was enacted to curb a social evil, and its interpretation must reflect this objective, rather than adhering to a hyper-technical and pedantic approach.

Mischief Rule (Heydon’s Rule)

• Referring to the mischief rule, the court stated that the intent of the legislature was to address the harassment of women in marital and quasi-marital relationships. The judiciary must prioritise this intent over technicalities.

Definition of “Husband”

• The court in Reema Aggarwal versus Anupam and Ors held that the term “husband” in Sections 498A and 304B includes individuals who enter into a marital relationship—even if not legally valid—and assume the status of a husband.
• Such individuals should be held liable for any cruelty or harassment inflicted on the woman in the guise of a marital relationship.

Key Rulings in Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam and Ors

1. Expanded Applicability of Sections 498A and 304B: The Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and Ors ruled that these provisions apply even in cases where the parties are not legally married, provided the man assumes the status of a husband and subjects the woman to cruelty or harassment.
2. Progressive Interpretation: By adopting a progressive and inclusive interpretation, the court ensured that women in informal or pseudo-marital relationships are not deprived of legal remedies against harassment.
3. Social Justice Orientation: The judgement emphasised that laws designed to protect women should not be defeated by legal technicalities, particularly in cases involving dowry harassment and cruelty.

Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam and Ors Summary

The Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and Ors (2004) expanded the scope of Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC, ruling that these provisions apply even in cases where the marital relationship is not legally valid. The appellant, Reema Aggarwal, alleged dowry harassment by Anupam, her second husband, whose first marriage was not legally dissolved. Lower courts dismissed the case, citing the absence of a legal marriage. However, the Supreme Court held that the term “husband” includes anyone assuming a marital role and subjecting the woman to cruelty. Emphasising a liberal interpretation, the court aimed to curb social evils like dowry harassment and ensure women’s protection, irrespective of the technical legality of marriage.