JUDGMENT : K C Sood, J. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (I), Palampur, District Kangra, dated 7th April, 2004. 2. It appears, respondents (the accused) were tried for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted solely on the ground that the marriage between the complainant and Ravi Kumar is not proved to be a valid and legal. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed: Surkesha Kumari, the complainant, filed a complaint before the learned trial Court saying that she was wedded to Ravi Kumar Sepahia on 11th March, 1999. During the marriage her father, who is a retired military personnel, gave adequate household articles. Her husband Ravi Kumar is employed in a private concern at Delhi, whereas she lived with her in-laws. After 4-5 months of the marriage accused started harassing her for having not brought adequate dowry. They would also occasionally beat her, use filthy language and make her life difficult. She complained to her parents. Her parents came to her matrimonial home, but they too were insulted. According to her, it was on 17th June, 2001 that the accused mercilessly gave beatings to her and threatened her to do away with her life. When she fell unconscious, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. After this incident she returned back to her parental house and filed a complaint with the learned trial Magistrate. Learned trial Magistrate directed the registration of the case under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It may be noticed that all the accused are close relatives of the husband of the complainant. Learned trial Magistrate, on the basis of the evidence on record, took a view that the complainant was earlier married to one Naresh Chand Katoch who is alive and divorce has not taken place between them. Learned Magistrate concluded that the complainant is not legally wedded wife of Ravi Kumar and in the absence of the relationship of husband and wife, provisions of Section 498-A were not invokable. Even father of the complainant admitted in his cross-examination that her daughter, the complainant, was married to Naresh Chand Katoch. Complainant also admitted her marriage with Naresh Chand Katoch. Even father of the complainant admitted in his cross-examination that her daughter, the complainant, was married to Naresh Chand Katoch. Complainant also admitted her marriage with Naresh Chand Katoch. She claimed that divorce between her and Naresh Chand Katoch took place in the Court at Jogindernagar. Learned trial Magistrate took a judicial notice that there was no Court of the District Judge at Jogindernagar and rejected this plea of the complainant. Having found that there was no legal and valid marriage between Ravi Kumar and the complainant, learned trial Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint and acquitted the accused. The question which arises for consideration is if a man or a woman live together as husband and wife, then whether in such arrangement the main would be a husband for the purposes of Section 498-A of the Act. It is true that concept of dowry is closely linked with the marriage. In fact, the object of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is to prevent the torture of a woman by her husband or by the relatives of her husband who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demand of dowry. 5. What stare at us is should a question mark on the legality or validity of a marriage come in the way of an aggrieved wife for redressal of unlawful demand made by the husband or the relatives of the husband under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The object of introducing Sections 498-A and 304-B in the Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B in the Indian Evidence Act was to prevent harassment to a woman who enters into marital relationship with the person and later on becomes a victim of the greed of the husband or his relatives and if the Court taking cognizance under Section 498-A of the Act enters into the legality or validity of the marriage then the very purpose of the introduction of these provisions is frustrated. 6. A similar question arose in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and others, (2004) 3 SCC 199 . In this context this Lordships observed: "The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enters into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. 6. A similar question arose in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and others, (2004) 3 SCC 199 . In this context this Lordships observed: "The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enters into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. Can a person who enters into a marital arrangement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise? Such legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions. Such hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage harassment to a woman over demand of money. The nomenclature "dowry" does not have any magic charm written over it. It is just a label given to demand of money in relation to marital relationship. The legislative intent is clear form the fact that it is not only the husband but also his relations who are covered by Section 498-A. The legislature has taken care of children born form invalid marriages. Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and avoidable marriages. Can it I be said that the legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and violable, marriages closed its eyes to the plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship? If such restricted meaning is given, it would not further the legislative intent. On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding ' harassment to a woman over demand of money in relation to marriages. The first exception to Section 494 has also some relevance. According to it, the offence of bigamy will not apply to "any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction." 7. Their Lordships proceeded to observe: "It would be appropriate to construe the expression "husband" to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerces her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions." (emphasis given) 8. In the present case there is no dispute that the complainant was living in the house of he accused as wife of Ravi Kumar. 9. The learned trial Magistrate erred in law in holding that since valid marriage is not proved by the complainant with Ravi Kumar, therefore, unlawful demand would not fall within (he ambit of the Section. 498-A of the Act. 10. In result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The case is sent back to the trial Court to decide this case after hearing the parties on merits on the basis of evidence on record. Any observation made hereinabove would not be construed any expression on the merits of the case. Learned trial Magistrate shall decide the case at its own merits uninfluenced by this judgment. 11. The accused shall appear before the trial Court on 30.9.2005. The records of the trial Court shall be remitted back to the trial Court immediately so as to reach well within time.