Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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