HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1125 of 2004 O R D E R: The sole accused is the wife of the accused in CC No. 35 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal. The wife lodged a complaint against the husband for the offence punishable u/Sec.498-A IPC. In support of her claim, she examined herself as P.W.1 apart from P.Ws.2 to 7 on her behalf and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused through the impugned order inter alia holding that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is laid. 2. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. The offence alleged against the accused is u/Sec. 498-A IPC. The jural relationship of wife and husband is necessary to invoke the provisions u/Sec. 498-A IPC as it is an offence by the husband or relatives of the husband against the destitute wife. If the jural relationship of a man and his wife is not made out, at once, the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC would be ruled out. 4. In the present case, P.W.1 is the wife of the accused and thus the defacto complainant and her father–PW-2 admitted that PW- 1 was earlier married to one Krishna Reddy and that their marriage did not stand dissolved through a decree of divorce. Perhaps PW-1 and the accused were living together. Under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, and on account of the operation of the principles of factum valet, the marriage between PW-1 and the accused is made out. So far as the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC is concerned, the defacto complainant-–PW-1 must be the wife of the accused. P.W-1 as well as her father PW-2 admitted that the earlier marriage of PW-1 with Krishna Reddy was not dissolved. Consequently, PW-1 could not be the wife of the accused. Assuming that the accused committed the offence u/Sec. 498-A IPC otherwise, for the technical reasons, the accused is liable to be acquitted, for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC cannot be made out against the accused, who is not the husband of PW-1. 5. The added factor in this case is that the prosecution witnesses –Pws.1 and 2 failed to establish the cruelty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Their case is that the accused used to beat her and demanded additional dowry. It is also the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that P.W.2 took PW-1 to a doctor and that there were mediators for the dispute between the accused and P.W.1. When P.Ws.1 and 2 did not examine the doctor and the alleged mediators, the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC cannot be made out, even if the accused were the husband of P.W.1. At any rate, the prosecution failed to establish that P.W.1 is the legally wedded wife of the accused. Consequently, PW-1 is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Sec. 498-A IPC against the accused. The trial court was perfectly justified in holding that the prosecution failed to make out the case against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 498-A IPC and consequently, the revision case shall stand dismissed. 6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. ______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J DT. 10-2-2011 Mjl/*