Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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

 

Similar News