Girlfriend Or Woman With Whom A Man Has Had Romantic Or Sexual Relations Outside Of Marriage Cannot Be Construed As Relative U/S. 498A IPC: SC
The Supreme Court observed that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative in order to be prosecuted under section 498A IPC.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal arising out of a Karnataka High Court judgment dismissing the criminal petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the proceedings in a case registered against her under Sections 498A, 504, 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “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 was in any way concerned with causing harassment to respondent No.2 on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.”
AOR K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya represented the Appellant while AOR D. L. Chidananda represented the Respondents.
The genesis of this case dates back to the year 2019, when an FIR came to be lodged by respondent-complainant wife against her husband, his relatives and the appellant herein. As per the said FIR, the complainant got married and a sum or Rs 3 Lakh, 25 grams of gold ornaments and other articles were given in dowry. It was further alleged that her husband along with his relatives harassed her physically as well as mentally.
It was alleged that prior to the marriage, the present appellant was in a relationship with the complainant’s husband which continued even after marriage and when the complainant questioned the same she was assaulted. It was also alleged that the appellant scolded the complainant-wife in a filthy language through the phone. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against five accused persons. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 praying for quashing of the proceedings but the same was rejected. Henc, appeal by way of special leave was filed by the appellant before the Apex Court.
The Appellant’s Counsel relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another to contend that the appellant couldn’t be construed to be a relative within the meaning of the relatives of the husband under the purview of Section 498A of IPC. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that the complainant-wife and the accused-husband had amicably settled the matter as amongst them and a decree of divorce by mutual consent had also been passed dissolving the marriage between the two.
The Bench noted that in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), the Apex Court had an occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage would be a “relative of the husband” for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of IPC.
It was observed in U. Suvetha (supra) that 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.
“It could thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative”, the Bench said.
“Apart from that for bringing a case under Section 498A of IPC, the material placed on record should show that the ill 6 treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry”, it added.
Finding no averment or material to show that the appellant was in any way concerned with causing harassment to the complainant on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against her.
Cause Title: X v. The State of Karnataka And Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 972)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Advocates Sufyan Hassan, Hema Malik
Respondents: AOR D. L. Chidananda
