Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Live-in Partner Not a "Relative" Under Section 498-A of IPC, Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court delivered a landmark judgement on August 3rd, 2023, clarifying the interpretation of the term "relative" under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The ruling comes as a result of a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 5681 of 2021) brought before the court by Chandhini T.K, who was the 4th accused in Criminal Case No. 116/2020.

The case revolved around the accusation of cruelty against Chandhini T.K for her alleged involvement in a live-in relationship with the complainant's husband. The court, presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Babu, meticulously examined the legal definitions and nuances of the term "relative" as stipulated under Section 498-A of the IPC.

In its observation, the court stated, "By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a woman who maintains sexual relations with a man outside of marriage in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such 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." The court, therefore, emphasized that the term "relative" does not extend to a woman in a live-in relationship.

The judgement has far-reaching implications as it clarifies that a woman in a romantic or sexual relationship with a married man cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A of the IPC. This interpretation of the term "relative" in the context of live-in relationships underscores the court's commitment to a strict construction of penal provisions.

The court's decision led to the quashing of the FIR and the final report against Chandhini T.K, reinforcing the principle that prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC requires a specific status of relation conferred by blood, marriage, or adoption.

This ruling aligns with the evolving legal landscape surrounding relationships and marriage, providing clarity on the boundaries of prosecution under Section 498-A. The judgement also underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving penal provisions, ensuring that statutes are interpreted in accordance with their precise legal definitions and intent.

Date of Decision: August 3rd, 2023

CHANDHINI. T.K vs STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News