Supreme Court of India
Credit: Reuters Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said a woman cannot be prosecuted for dowry harassment under Section 498 A of the IPC for being a girlfriend of the husband of an aggrieved woman or for having a romantic or sexual relationship with him.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan emphasised to proceed against a person under the dowry harassment provision, relationship with the husband either by blood, marriage or adoption was imperative.
The court set aside the Karnataka High Court's order of April 12, 2021 as abuse of the process of law.
The High Court had dismissed the appellant woman's plea to quash the charge sheet filed against her following an FIR lodged for various offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 109 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
According to the FIR, the complainant's husband was allegedly involved in relationship with the appellant woman and continued to maintain it even after marriage. On the complainant's opposition to the relationship, the complainant was physically and mentally harassed.
Assailing the High Court's order, the appellant woman's counsel K V Bharathi Upadhyaya, submitted even if the allegations in the FIR or in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, no case under Section 498A of IPC is made out against her. She further submitted that the allegations are false and fabricated as the appellant is residing 200 kms away with the complainant's husband.
She asked the court to quash the proceedings pending before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete.
The counsel also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment of 2009 in the case of U Suvetha vs State by Inspector of Police and Another, to submit that the appellant cannot be construed to be a relative within the meaning of the relatives of the husband under the purview of Section 498A of IPC.
She also said the complainant and her husband have amicably settled the matter as amongst them and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has also been passed dissolving the marriage.
Agreeing to her submission, the bench noted this court, in the case of U Suvetha 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.
The bench pointed out this court had then said, 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.
Also going by the FIR and the charge sheet, the bench there is 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.
"We are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would be nothing else but an abuse of process of law," the bench said, allowing the plea in its judgment on December 4.