JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. - Order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi in G.R. Case No. 231 of 2006 framing charge against the Petitioners under Sections 498-A/109/34 of the IPC is the subject matter of challenge in this revision. 2. O.P. No. 2 lodged an FIR with the O.I.C., Paralakhemundi Police Station on the basis of which a case was registered on 14.9.2006 against the Petitioners Under Sections 498-A, 313, 109/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations in the FIR, in a nutshell, are that O.P. No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 Gopi Behera were in love with each other since six years prior to the lodging of the FIR and having promised to marry her Petitioner No. 1 had sexual relationship with O.P. No. 2 and she got pregnant, but at the instance of the Petitioner her pregnancy was aborted. It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 married O.P. No. 2 in a temple and kept her in a rented house in Hyderabad where they were living as husband and wife. It is further alleged that on the instigation of the in-laws of O.P. No. 2 (Petitioner Nos.2 to 4) her husband was treating her with cruelty and demanding dowry. Even after the marriage her pregnancy was again aborted by Petitioner No. 1. He also stopped to provide her food. It is further alleged that in the month of August, 2006, Petitioner No. 1 abandoned O.P. No. 2 in Hyderabad and came back to his house at Paralakhemundi. Shortly thereafter, O.P. No. 2 with the assistance of Ors. came to Paralakhemundi and went to her husband's house where the accused persons abused and assaulted her and drove her out of their house. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons Under Sections 498-A/109/34 of the IPC. Cognizance was taken and thereafter by the impugned order charge has been framed by learned S.D.J.M. against the accused-Petitioners for the offences as aforesaid. 3. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons Under Sections 498-A/109/34 of the IPC. Cognizance was taken and thereafter by the impugned order charge has been framed by learned S.D.J.M. against the accused-Petitioners for the offences as aforesaid. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners making a reference to the FIR lodged by O.P. No. 2 and her statement recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure contends that there is no proof of the alleged marriage inasmuch as in the FIR while it is alleged that the marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 took place in a temple, in her statement Under Sections 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, she has stated that the marriage took place inside the temple by exchange of garlands. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sabitri Patra Vs. State of Orissa and Another, and it is submitted that the marriage by exchange of garlands is not a valid marriage and in the absence of valid marriage there can be no conviction Under Sections 498-A of the IPC. 4. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and Others, that the marriage which is not even legal marriage can give rise to an offence Under Sections 498-A of the IPC, if the woman concerned is subjected to cruelty of the nature described in the Section. 5. Sections 239 and 240, Code of Criminal Procedure lay down the provisions for framing charge and discharging the accused persons. They are quoted as under :- 239. When accused shall be discharged - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it u/s 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 240. 240. Framing of charge.- (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that he accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." It is thus apparent that at the stage of framing charge the Court is not concerned to weigh and balance the evidence recorded during investigation in order to come to a conclusion whether a sure conviction of the accused will follow at the conclusion of the trial. On consideration of the police report and the documents and other materials on record and after hearing the accused and the learned Counsel if the Magistrate comes to conclusion that there is reason to presume that the accused has committed an offence triable by the Court, he shall frame a charge in writing. At the stage of framing of charge the Court is not required to give importance to minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. 6. In the judgment in the case of Smt. Sabitri Patara (supra) the Court was examining the validity of marriage with reference to evidence u/s 498-A, IPC after conclusion of the trial where the judgment of acquittal was challenged in revision before this Court. On going through the said decision it is found that validity of the marriage between th'e informant and the accused was challenged, though marriage was said to be performed only by exchange of garlands. There was nb other evidence with regard to performance of any other ceremony or that the marriage by exchange of garlands was permissible according to the caste, custom of the parties. In that context, this Court held that marriage was not valid and therefore refused to interfere with the order of acquittal. So far as the present case is concerned, it is only at the stage of framing of charge and the trial of the case has not been commenced. O.P. No. 2 stated in the in the FIR that her marriage with Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized in the temple. So far as the present case is concerned, it is only at the stage of framing of charge and the trial of the case has not been commenced. O.P. No. 2 stated in the in the FIR that her marriage with Petitioner No. 1 was solemnized in the temple. In her statement before the police she said that in the temple they exchanged garlands and got married There is no material on record that no other ceremony required for a valid marriage was not performed. In the event the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 is disputed during trial, though primary burden to prove the said fact is on the prosecution, the prosecution may lead evidence with regard to other ceremonies, if any, performed during the marriage and explain the omission of necessary details thereof in the FIR or in the statement before the police on reasonable ground. That stage has not yet reached. Therefore, the decision in the case of Smt. Sabitri (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In Reema Aggarwal's case (supra) repelling the contention that there can be no offence u/s 498-A, IPC against a woman, who has entered into a void or invalid marriage the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 held as under :- 11. The question as to who would be covered by the expression "husband" for attracting Section 498-A does present problems. Etymologically, in terms of the definitions of "husband" and "marriage" as given in the various law lexicons and dictionaries - the existence of a valid marriage ... may appear to be a sine qua non for applying a penal provision. In Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav a woman claimed maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Code of Criminal Procedure"). This Court applied the provision of the Marriage Act and pointed out that same was a law which held the field after 1955, when it was enacted and Section 5 lays down that for a lawful marriage the necessary condition that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage is essential and marriage in contravention of this condition therefore is null and void. The concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of "husband" and "wife" may require strict interpretation where claims for civil rights, right to property etc. may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different perception cannot be an anathema when the question of curbing a social evil is concerned. It is also further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the said judgment as follows :- 18. The concept of "dowry" is intermittently linked with a marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Act apply in relation to marriages. If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue, further legalistic problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Evidence Act") were introduced, cannot be lost sight of. Legislation enacted with some policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate definite public purpose or benefit positively requires to be interpreted with a certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hypertechnically. The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enteres 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 their 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 from 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 from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children to void and voidable marriages. The legislative intent is clear from 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 from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children to void and voidable marriages. Can it be said that the legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and voidable 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 country, 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." 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 feighned 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 - Sections 304-B/498-A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of "husband" to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the purported exercise of their role and status as "husband" is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304-B or 498-A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions. 8. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P., . 9. Having regard to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Reema Aggarwal (supra) and Koppisetti Rubbharao's case, the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sabitri Patra (supra) has denuded its yalue. 8. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P., . 9. Having regard to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Reema Aggarwal (supra) and Koppisetti Rubbharao's case, the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sabitri Patra (supra) has denuded its yalue. Accordingly, I find that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing charge u/s 498-A. There is no merit in this Revision, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order of stay stands vacated. Since the G.R. case is of the year 2006, the Trial Court shall do well to complete the trial expeditiously.