The Girlfriend Of A Husband Cannot Be Considered A “relative” As Per Section 498a Of The Ipc. I.
INTRODUCTION
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted to protect married women from cruelty by their husbands and their husbands’ relatives. Over the years, courts have repeatedly examined the scope of this provision to ensure that it is used to punish genuine offenders and not misapplied against individuals who fall outside its legal framework. The Telangana High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the woman. This judgment is significant because it reinforces the statutory limits of criminal liability and prevents the expansion of penal provisions beyond their intended meaning.
II.
BACKGROUND OF SECTION 498A IPC
Section 498A IPC provides punishment for cruelty committed against a married woman by her husband or the relatives of her husband.³ The section was introduced in 1983 to address increasing instances of domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. The essential ingredients of Section 498A are: i.
The woman must be legally married.
ii.
She must be subjected to cruelty.
iii.
The cruelty must be inflicted by her husband or a relative of her husband.
The term “relative” is not specifically defined in the IPC. However, courts have interpreted it to mean persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The controversy often arises when complaints include individuals who are not legally related to the husband but are associated with him in some way.
III. FACTS OF THE CASE In the present case before the Telangana High Court, a wife filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC against her husband and also against another woman alleged to be his girlfriend. The wife claimed that the girlfriend’s involvement in her husband’s life amounted to cruelty and harassment. The girlfriend challenged the criminal proceedings before the High Court by filing a petition to quash the case. She argued that she did not fall within the meaning of “relative” under Section 498A IPC and therefore could not be prosecuted under that provision. IV. LEGAL ISSUE The main legal issue before the Court was whether a husband’s girlfriend can be considered a “relative” under Section 498A IPC. This required the Court to interpret the scope of the word “relative” and determine whether it includes individuals who are not connected by blood, marriage, or adoption. V. COURT’S REASONING The Telangana High Court examined earlier Supreme Court judgments that interpreted the term “relative.” In U. Suvetha v. State, the Supreme Court held that a girlfriend or concubine of a husband cannot be treated as a “relative” under Section 498A IPC.⁶ The Court emphasized that penal provisions must be strictly interpreted and cannot be expanded through judicial interpretation.
Following this principle, the Telangana High Court observed that criminal liability under Section 498A is limited to the husband and his legally recognized relatives. A girlfriend, even if involved in an extramarital relationship, does not become a relative in the legal sense. The Court noted that if the legislature had intended to include such persons, it would have expressly done so. Expanding the meaning of “relative” to include girlfriends would amount to rewriting the law, which is not permissible. As a result, the Court quashed the proceedings against the woman while allowing the case to continue against the husband. VI. IMPORTANCE OF STRICT INTERPRETATION IN CRIMINAL LAW The decision reflects a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence: penal statutes must be strictly construed. Courts cannot enlarge the scope of criminal provisions beyond what the legislature has clearly stated. This approach protects individuals from arbitrary prosecution and ensures that criminal liability is imposed only in accordance with clear statutory language. At the same time, it does not prevent a wife from seeking remedies under other applicable laws if she has suffered harm due to her husband’s conduct. VII. BROADER IMPLICATIONS The judgment has several important implications: i.
Clarity in Legal Interpretation: It confirms that only legally recognized relatives fall within Section 498A IPC.
ii.
Prevention of Misuse: It prevents the misuse of criminal law against persons who are not legally covered by the provision.
iii.
Legislative Responsibility: It underscores that any expansion of criminal liability must come from legislative amendment, not judicial interpretation.
However, the decision does not mean that extramarital relationships are legally irrelevant. Such conduct may still have consequences under matrimonial law, including divorce proceedings or claims for maintenance. VIII. CONCLUSION By quashing the case against the woman, the Court upheld the principle that criminal liability must be clearly defined by law and cannot be extended by inference. While Section 498A remains an important safeguard against cruelty, its application must remain within its legal boundaries. This judgment strikes a balance between protecting married women from harassment and preventing unwarranted criminal prosecution of individuals who do not fall within the statutory definition. Learn More: https://www.thedivorcelawfirm.in/
