The wife also filed a dowry case against her husband and his family members. When the girlfriend appealed to the Karnataka High Court, the court rejected her plea. This led the girlfriend to approach the Supreme Court, questioning how a girlfriend could be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC.
NEW DELHI: In a strange case, a wife filed an FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against her husband, his family members, and his girlfriend, who lived 200 kilometers away with her own husband.
The wife also filed a dowry case against her husband and his family members. When the girlfriend appealed to the Karnataka High Court, the court rejected her plea. This led the girlfriend to approach the Supreme Court, questioning how a girlfriend could be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the criminal proceedings against the husband, his family, and his romantic girlfriend were a clear abuse of the legal process.
Can a Husband’s Girlfriend Be a Party in a 498A Case?
The main question raised before the Supreme Court was whether a husband’s girlfriend could be included as a party to a case under Section 498A, and if so, under what conditions. The wife had alleged in her FIR that her husband and his family members tortured her physically and mentally due to demands for dowry. She also claimed that when she confronted her husband about his romantic relationship with another woman, he verbally abused her in foul language.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which involved the husband, his family, and the girlfriend. However, the girlfriend did not appear at any hearings despite receiving multiple notices from the court.
What Did the Supreme Court Say About the 498A Case?
According to the FIR, the wife stated that at the time of her marriage, a dowry of Rs. 3 lakh, 25 grams of gold ornaments, and other items were given. She mentioned that she lived happily for the first six months, after which her husband and his family allegedly harassed her, both physically and mentally.
READ ALSO: Section 498A and Dowry Act Misuse: Supreme Court Warns Wife For Filling False FIR
The Court observed: “For bringing a case under Section 498A of IPC, the material placed on record should show that the ill treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will show that there is no averment or material to show that the appellant (husband) was in any way concerned with causing harassment on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would be nothing else but an abuse of process of law.”
Can a Girlfriend Be a “Relative” in a 498A Case?
Another important question raised, whether a girlfriend could be considered a “relative” for the purposes of Section 498A. Section 498A of the IPC specifically applies to cruelty perpetrated by a husband or his relatives. The Court carefully examined the legal meaning of the word “relative.”
The Supreme Court concluded: “By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a ‘relative’. The word ‘relative’ brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.”
The Court emphasized that a girlfriend, or even a concubine, cannot be categorized as a “relative” under Section 498A. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of the law, which aims to protect married women from cruelty within the family.
The Supreme Court cited a similar case, U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, where the question of whether a girlfriend could be treated as a “relative” for the purposes of Section 498A was addressed. In that case, the Court had also ruled that a girlfriend or a woman involved in a romantic or sexual relationship outside of marriage could not be considered a relative of the husband.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
After considering the arguments and evidence, the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs and all criminal proceedings against the husband, his family, and his romantic girlfriend. The Court made the following orders:
- The appeal is accordingly allowed.
- The judgment and order of the High Court dated 12th April 2021 is quashed and set aside.
- The proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 109 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are quashed and set aside qua the appellant herein.
- Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
What Precedent Does This Judgment Set?
This Supreme Court ruling sets an important legal precedent by clarifying the interpretation of Section 498A and the scope of who can be prosecuted under it.
Ekta Rai, Advocate, Delhi High Court, explains:
“The Supreme Court’s decision in this judgement has brought clarity to the interpretation of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court ruled that a woman involved in an extramarital relationship with a married man cannot be prosecuted under this provision, as she does not qualify as a ‘relative’ within the meaning of the law. Section 498A, intended to protect married women from cruelty by their husbands and in-laws, requires a familial connection through blood, marriage, or adoption to bring someone under its purview.”
She further adds:
“By excluding individuals without such ties, the judgment ensures that the scope of the law is limited to its original legislative intent, focusing on acts of cruelty within the matrimonial context. This decision sets a significant precedent, refining the application of Section 498A and reducing its potential misuse in cases where the accused lacks a familial relationship with the husband.”
Kapil Arora, Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, notes:
“This Supreme Court judgement has not set a new precedent- and has reiterated the law laid down in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Anr (2009) 6 SCC 757. In the earlier judgement in U. Suvetha, passed in 2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court whilst interpreting the word ‘relative’ used in Section 498A IPC, noted that the same had not been defined in the IPC.”
He further observes:
“In this background, the court held that by no stretch of imagination could a girlfriend/concubine be considered as a ‘relative’. It was clarified that the word ‘relative’ brings within its purview a status. Such a status must necessarily be conferred by blood or marriage or adoption. If there is no marriage, the question of one being a relative would not arise.”
Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court, adds:
“This judgment clarifies the position that had already been settled by the Supreme Court in one of its earlier judgments. Previously, the court had held that a ‘girlfriend’ cannot be included within the term ‘relative’ for the purposes of section 498A.”
Yatharth Rohila, Partner, Aeddhaas Legal LLP, concludes:
“This judgment reinforces and clarifies the legal interpretation of ‘relative of the husband’ under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The precedent ensures that Section 498A is not misused to target individuals who do not fall within its statutory scope.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
