Bombay High Court rules that a husband’s friend is not a ‘relative’ under Section 498A IPC, and thus cannot be prosecuted for cruelty towards the wife.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has held that a friend of the husband cannot be booked for cruelty towards the wife, under Section 498A. The Court stated that a “friend” does not fall within the legal definition of a ‘relative’ under the provision.
ALSO READ: Taunts Over Complexion ‘Not Cruelty’ Under Section 498A, Says Bombay High Court
Background of the Case
The judgment came in response to a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2022 by a woman alleging cruelty by her husband, in-laws, and his friend. According to the complainant, the husband’s friend would frequently visit their matrimonial home and instigate the husband to demand dowry, including a plot of land and a car from her father. She further alleged that the friend advised the husband to abandon her and send her back to her parental home if the demands were not fulfilled.
Court’s Observation and Final Judgment
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and MM Nerlikar at the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court noted that:
“A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither a blood relative nor does he have any relation through marriage or adoption.”
The Court relied on previous Supreme Court precedents, which had held that even a girlfriend or a person in an extramarital relationship could not be considered a “relative” under Section 498A. Applying the same logic, the High Court concluded that a friend does not acquire any legal status akin to that of a relative.
The High Court held that since the husband’s friend does not qualify as a ‘relative’, the proceedings against him should be quashed. The case against the husband and his parents will continue as they do fall under the statutory scope of Section 498A.
Section 498A IPC
Section 498A IPC deals with cruelty by a husband or his relative towards a wife, especially in connection with dowry demands. However, the term ‘relative’ has not been defined explicitly in the IPC, leading to varying interpretations over time. Courts have consistently maintained that the term must be interpreted strictly to prevent misuse of the provision.
Appearance:
Advocate SA Mohta appeared for the husband, his friend, and the other accused.
Additional Public Prosecutor SS Jachak represented the State.
Advocate S Patrikar appeared on behalf of the complainant-wife.
Case Title: LawChakra Narendra & Others Vs State of Maharashta & Other
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1619/2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Section 488A IPC
