A Supreme Court Bench has given a split verdict on whether a man,involved in a long,live-in relation gone sour,can be held guilty of deceiving the woman for letting her believe that she was legally married to him and cohabit with him. While Justice Markandeya Katju heading the Bench took the view that what was morally wrong may not necessarily be illegal,the lone woman judge of the apex court Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra struck a dissenting note that it amounted to deception. A man's act of wrongly inducing a woman to believe that she has been legally married to him and letting her cohabit with him under the belief has been defined as a penal offence under section 493 of Indian Penal Code,attracting a jail term of up to 10 years. Absolving the man of all guilt under Section 493 of the IPC,Justice Katju ruled: "Often an act may be regarded as immoral by society but it may not be illegal". "To be illegal,the act must clearly attract some specific provision of the IPC of some other statute," Justice Katju added. Justice Mishra,however,held the man guilty of section 493 of the IPC,saying,"Even though Bhagat and victim lady Sunita had not married by performing any ritual,various evidence on record,(including official documents) clearly indicate that the woman could infer that she was legally married." "If the evidence on record indicate inducement of a belief in any manner in the woman - that she is the lawfully married wife of the man accused of an offence of section 493 of the IPC,the same will have to be treated as a sufficient material to bring home the guilt under section 493 of the IPC," said Justice Mishra. In the particular case relating to a 9-year live-in relationship involving a Block Development Officer of Jharkhand,Justice Katju held the man cannot be held guilty of deceiving the woman as "it is her own case that the man had assured her that he will marry her". But Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra,held the man guilty of deceiving the woman and cohabiting with her,while basing her verdict on various official documents,including the area voter list created during their live-in period and describing them as man and wife. As the two judges on the Bench gave differing verdicts,the matter was referred to Chief Justice S H Kapadia to get the issue examined by a larger Bench. Bhagat had filed the appeal against a High Court judgment of 2005 endorsing the trial court verdict which held him guilty of cohabiting with the woman by inducing her to believe that she had been legally married to him. He had developed acquaintance with the woman during his tenure in Lohardagga in Jharkhand and began living with her. The couple lived together for nine years during which the woman gave birth to two children - a son and a daughter. However,he later disowned her,leading to the court battle. During the live-in period,the man even executed an agreement with the woman that they will marry later and even filed an application to special marriage officer for procuring a marriage certificate.
