Whether Girlfriend Or Romantic Partner of husband can Be Made Accused In S.498A IPC Case?

This Court, in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), 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.

9. This Court, after considering the earlier judgments of

this Court and the dictionary meaning of a relative, observed

thus:-

“18. 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.”

10. 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.

{Para 8}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

DECHAMMA I.M. @ DECHAMMA KOUSHIK Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER 

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Citation:  2024 INSC 972.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Husband's Girlfriend Is Not His Relative, Cannot Be Booked For Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

Non-applicant No.2 Bharti, has lodged the complaint against her husband Nitesh stating that because of the affair of her husband with the applicant he tortured her.  Initially, the First Information Report is registered against the husband. During the investigation, the statements are recorded. The cause of harassment by the husband was disclosed about the affair with the applicant and therefore, the name of the applicant is added and the chargesheet is filed against the applicant.

6. As the applicant is not the relative of husband of nonapplicant No.2 498-A of the Indian Penal Code shall not be attracted. As the charge-sheet is filed against this applicant, who is not the relative and only because allegations are made that the husband of the non-applicant No.2 is having extra marital affair with this applicant, the charge-sheet filed against her which is illegal, according to law. Hence, the criminal application is allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.622 OF 2020

Vaishali Janbaji Gawande Vs  Bharati Nitesh Raipure, 

CORAM : VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

 MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

 DATE : 11th July, 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Vrushali V.Joshi, J.)

Print Page

Whether relative of deceased tenant is entitled to get tenancy rights as per S 7(15)(d) of Maharashtra rent control Act?

The question still arises as to whether respondent No. 2 can be considered to be a member of the family of respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is the cousin of the husband of respondent No. 1. It also cannot be disputed that he came to reside with tenant-respondent No. 1 and her husband in the year 1980, and was not residing with them since the commencement of the tenancy some time in the year 1973 or 1975, (the precise year when the tenancy commenced is not clear from the record). It is also admitted by respondent No. 2 that he had his own separate and independent business and that he was not looking after the business of the husband of respondent No. 1. The husband of respondent No. 1 has a trading business in coal, whereas respondent No. 2 claims to have a transport, business and he owned a truck which he was plying for gain.

12. It was sought to be argued before us that since the father of the husband of the tenant-respondent No. 1 and the father of respondent No. 2 are real brothers, there is blood relationship between the two and therefore it must be held that respondent No. 2 is a member of the family of respondent No. 1. This submission overlooks the fact that the tenant in question is not the husband of respondent No. 1 but the respondent No. 1 herself. It cannot be said that respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are blood relations. That apart, the question still remains as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be held that respondent No. 2 is a member of the family of respondent No. 1. It is futile to attempt to lay down a strait, jacket formula as to who can be considered to be the member of the family of the tenant, particularly in the absence of definition of 'family' in the Act. Having regard to relevant considerations, the question must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court has relied upon some decisions of this Court wherein the question raised was whether the brother was a member of the family, or a case where the tenant had to go to a foreign country on business, leaving behind his parents and family members, including brothers and sisters. In such a factual situation, this Court held that the persons who occupied the premises were the members of the family of the tenant. Such is not the case here.

13. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2 that the family of the husband of respondent No. 1, including his uncles and cousins, always resided together. In fact the evidence on record discloses that respondent No. 1 resided in the premises with her husband only. Respondent No. 2 joined them sometime in the year 1980, and he had his own separate business. There is nothing to show that they ever resided together at any earlier point of time or that their fathers ever lived together. In fact the evidence on record is to the contrary. After he came to reside with respondent No. 1 in the year 1980, an alternate premises was acquired by the tenant and she shifted to those premises sometime in the year 1981. Soon thereafter this dispute arose, because the tenant having shifted to another premises at Borivili, the premises in question continued to be occupied by respondent No. 2. In the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to hold that respondent No. 2 is a member of the family of respondent No. 1, the tenant.

14. The question as to whether a person is a member of the family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant's family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that they have always resided together as members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a relative has chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience, will not make him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent control legislation.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the courts below were justified in holding, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the premises in question was let out to respondent No. 1 which was occupied by her and her husband. She acquired another premises at Borivili where she shifted in the year 1981. Before that, in the year 1980 itself, respondent No. 2 had come to reside with them and he continued to occupy the demised premises even after respondent No. 1 and her husband shifted to another accommodation at Borivili. Respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be a member of the family of respondent No. 1, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the context of rent control legislation, with which we are concerned in the instant case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7161 of 2003

Decided On: 01.12.2005

Kailasbhai Shukaram Tiwari  Vs. Jostna Laxmidas Pujara and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2006 SC 741

Print Page

When it is permissible for legal heir to alienate property of his deceased relative?

 One cannot dispute a legal proposition that
once a heir becomes the absolute owner of the
property by virtue of a Will then as a necessary
consequence, he/she is entitled to alienate such
property by any mode permissible in law to anyone.
Alamelu Ammal did it when she alienated her share
by executing a Will in favour of the defendant(her
sister). It was legally permissible.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 4490 OF 2017

Karunanidhi 
V
Seetharama Naidu & Ors. 
Dated:March 27, 2017

Print Page

Whether relative staying with gratuitous licensee can seek injunction against co-owners of property?

Said Notice of Motion No.344 of 2013 was dismissed by Bombay
City Civil Court vide Order dated 29.04.2013. While rejecting the prayer it
was observed as under:-
“It is specific submission of defendant that Noorbanoo herself
has no right in this premises. Only on sympathetic ground she is
allowed to occupy the premises. If such is fact, when plaintiff is
coming before Court claiming equitable relief like injunction,
he has to prima facie show some rights to claim relief. If
protection is asked for, one must clearly seek ascertaining his
legal rights. Defendant has rightly pointed out that plaintiff is
not submitting his legal right to possess the suit premises. He is
merely claiming that he is residing with Noorbanoo and if
Noorbanoo herself is not having right in the property, I am of
the view that such type of protection cannot be granted in
favour of plaintiff. Neither Noorbanoo is made party to the suit,
nor there is sufficient material to indicate that Noorbanoo has
any legal right to allow plaintiff to reside with her in the suit
property for and on behalf of her. I am of the view that there is
no any substantial right made out on behalf of plaintiff to entitle
him for such equitable relief like injunction.”
The matter was further elaborated in subsequent decision of this Court
in Maria Margarida (Supra) as under:
“97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized
as under:
(1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was
allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long
possession of years or decades such person would not acquire
any right or interest in the said property.
(2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in
the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker
or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
(3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a
caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the
premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or
as a servant.
(4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended
to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease
agreement or license agreement in his favour.
(5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only
on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest
whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long
stay or possession.”
14. Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as
a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest in the
property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal
consequences. In the circumstances City Civil Court was right and justified
in rejecting the prayer for interim injunction and that decision ought not to
have been set aside by the High Court. We therefore, allow the appeal, set
aside the judgment under appeal and restore the Order dated 29.04.2013
passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.344 of 2013
in Suit No.408 of 2013.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 35464 OF 2013)
Behram Tejani & Ors. 
V
Azeem Jagani 
Dated:January 6, 2017
Citation:(2017) 2 SCC759

Print Page

Whether application U/S 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act is maintainable against person who is not relative of senior citizen?

In view of the above, an application under Section 22 of the Act
would be maintainable against any person irrespective of the fact whether
the respondent in the application falls within the category of persons as
defined in any of the definitions as provided for in Section 2 of the Act or
otherwise. The only rider is that the applicant should be a senior citizen as
defined in Section 2(h) i.e. a citizen of India, who has attained the age of 60
years or above and further as defined in Section 2 (f), he/she has a property
of any kind whether movable or immovable or self acquired, tangible or
intangible and includes rights and interest in such property. Accordingly, it
cannot be said that the application preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3
against the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law, would not be maintainable
under Section 22 of the Act.Hence answer to the first question is that the application
under Section 22 of the Act filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 being senior
citizens is maintainable
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15477 OF 2014 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JUNE 29, 2015
Balbir Kaur
V
Presiding Officer-cum-S.D.M. of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior
Citizen Tribunal, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and others

CORAM:- MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Citation;AIR 2016 Punjab and Haryana 4

Print Page

Whether wife from second marriage can be treated as relative for purposes of S 498A of IPC?

From the view of the Kerala High Court, the relationship of a man with a woman in a case of mistress, she cannot get the status of wife but when a lady enters into 2 nd marriage and the lady is treated as a wife by the husband, relative, friends or society will be construed as a relative of husband for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd marriage with another woman may be treated as void for the purpose of Hindu Succession Act or for Hindu Marriage Act, but for the purpose of section 498A, if the 2 nd marriage with another woman be treated as void marriage, in that situation, Section 494 of the Indian penal Code will be difficult to be applied because Section 494 presupposes a 2 nd marriage and, as such if the society and relative arising from the 2nd marriage, the woman is recognized as wife, then it is very difficult to brush aside that the 2nd wife will not be relative for the purpose of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has taken a view that the Court should liberally consider the word or expression relating to the person committing the offence so as to rope in not only those persons of faulty marriages but also any one who has undergone some or other forms of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband.

 On the analysis of the aforesaid judgment, it is completely clear that it cannot be brushed aside the status of a woman arising from 2nd marriage as a wife when the husband, relative or society considered and recognized the 2nd wife as a wife. If that be the situation it cannot be said that the 2nd wives are excluded from the purview of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. So the proposition advanced by the petitioners that 19 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2011 P19 / 25 the petitioner no.3 who has entered into a marriage with Rakesh Kumar Singh and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be treated as a relative for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code of Rakesh Kumar Singh is not acceptable and, as such, this argument of the petitioners is rejected.

Patna High Court - Orders

Asha Devi & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012

Citation: 2012(3)Crimes356, II(2013)DMC230, 2012(4)PLJR942

Print Page

When prosecution U/S 498A of IPC against relative of husband is liable to be quashed?

Whether prosecution of relatives of husband U/S 498A of IPC  who are not residing with husband and against whom there are no specific allegation can be quashed?
So far as Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned they
are residing separately at Shrigonda. Petitioner No.3 is in
service. Petitioner No.4 resides with Petitioner No.3 at
Shrigonda. The allegations against these two petitioners
are vague and general in nature. F.I.R. on its face does not
constitute any offence against Petitioner Nos.3 and 4. No
specific role is attributed to each of them. To prevent
abuse of process of law we find that discretion needs to be
exercised in respect to Petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.: 1001 OF 2014
Dnyanoba S/o Bhimrao Ganapure, V The State of Maharashtra.

CORAM:- T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT. I. K. JAIN, JJ.
DATED:- 6th APRIL, 2015.
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)3435

Print Page