Girlfriend can't be called kin, says HC

And we need a high court judgment to tell us this… after supreme court reportedly has already said so… Bharat Mahan… raho pareshaan!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Girlfriend-cant-be-called-kin-says-HC/articleshow/6442289.cms#ixzz0xlDXEHbV

TNN, Aug 27, 2010, 01.39am IST

MUMBAI: With live-in relations being accorded sanctity by law, can a girlfriend be a relative, the Bombay high court  wondered on Thursday. The court was hearing an application filed by a woman, Sunita, who had been named in a dowry harassment case. She had been dragged into the case filed by another woman, who claimed that Sunita was her husband's girlfriend and had accused her of cruelty.

A division bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice U D Salvi, in an interim order, stayed the criminal charges in the case against her till further orders.

Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code deals with cruelty to a married woman by her husband or his relatives. The cruelty could also be for failing to meet the unlawful demands of property or valuable security. Cruelty could refer to the conduct of a husband or in-laws that is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself.

Earlier, the Supreme Court, in a landmark order, had said that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a "relative'' in a 498 A case. The apex court had held that a concubine or a mistress cannot be charged under Section 498A. By no stretch of imagination can a girlfriend or even a concubine... be a relative. The word relative brings within its purview a status that can be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption, the SC bench had remarked.

498A cruelty case quashed after 7 years!

A new Supreme Court (SC) judment has quashed a charge-sheet filed under section 498A of IPC.

Wife can't level charge against hubby at whim

Relevant points from story:

1. A man or his relatives cannot be charged with causing cruelty to his wife unless his or his relatives' conduct towards the woman is such that can "cause the woman to commit suicide", the Supreme Court has held.

2. The bench said there was no prima facie case to attract a case of cruelty.


Note that the FIR was filed in 2002 in above case. The decision to quash charge-sheet has happened now, in 2009. What kind of legal system do we have that will keep open a case of cruelty under Sec 498A for 7 years when in supreme court's opinion there was no prima-facie case of cruelty? Do police and lower courts need help of supreme court to decide what is prima-facie a case of cruelty or not?

India's IPC 498A now internationally famous

From article here: http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2009/03/indias-notorious-section-498a-divorce.html

The result has been that when a marriage breaks up the woman is often able to get her husband and many of his family members arrested by simply filing a claim of cruelty and persuading the local police to arrest the so-called wrongdoers. This is much more effective than initiating an ordinary case for divorce. In the case of non-resident Indians the process has often proved calamitous for the husband. The spouses have an argument. She runs off to India, often with the children and as many of the assets as she can grab. She immediately starts a Section 498A case in India and then sues for divorce and custody in India. The husband cannot step foot in India because he will be arrested. Meanwhile his relatives in India are clamoring for him to settle up with his wife because they have been in jail or are fearful that that will happen. The Supreme Court of India has described such conduct as “legal terrorism.”

SC: Petty matrimonial spats not covered by section 498A, IPC

Read this recent Supreme court judgment:
SC: Petty matrimonial spats not covered by section 498A, IPC

Salient points from above:
1. A bench comprising Justices Mukundakam Sharma and B S Chauhan, dropping the charges of cruelty and harassment against a husband, noted, ‘Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A, IPC.
2. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty. Cruelty, for the purpose of Section 498A, IPC, is to be established in the context of Section 498A as it may be different from other statutory provisions.’ The 15-page judgment added, ‘It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc.
3. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of the time of lodging of the complaint.’ Justice Chauhan spoke for the bench ....
4. Thus in our opinion, all the three courts below erred in not considering the case in the correct perspective. The findings so recorded by the courts below may be relevant for granting relief in a matrimonial dispute like divorce etc but could not bring home the charge under Section 498A, IPC.’