Introduction
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that a woman in an extra-marital relationship with a husband cannot be treated as a “relative” under Section 498-A. The Court held that such individuals cannot be prosecuted for cruelty or harassment under this provision
Legal Issue
The complainant-wife’s attempt to implicate the husband’s alleged paramour and his family members under Section 498-A failed. The Court found the allegations vague and indicative of misuse of criminal law.
Case Title
Mela Ram & Ors. vs State of J&K & Anr., Arti Devi vs State of J&K & Anr.
Case Background
The complainant, a policewoman, married the husband in 2016. Within seven months, she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and mental and physical abuse by her husband and in-laws. She also accused the husband of having an illicit relationship with another woman.
An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code, and charges were framed by the trial court against multiple accused, including the alleged paramour.
The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheet, and proceedings.
Petitioner’s Stance
The petitioners argued that the complaint was a counter-blast to earlier legal actions initiated by the husband, including a petition for annulment and a criminal complaint filed prior to the wife’s FIR. They contended that the allegations were general, vague, and lacked specific details.
Court’s Ruling
The bench led by Justice Shahzad Azeem relied on the Supreme Court judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police. The Court reiterated that the term “relative” under Section 498-A refers to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
It held that a girlfriend or concubine does not fall within this definition. Since the accused had no legal relationship with the husband, she could not be prosecuted under Section 498-A.
Findings on Other Accused
The Court observed that the allegations against the husband’s family members were “omnibus and vague,” lacking specific details such as time, date, or nature of harassment.
Relying on precedents like Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court noted the increasing misuse of Section 498-A for personal vendetta.
It further found that the FIR appeared to be malicious and filed with ulterior motives, especially since prior legal proceedings had already been initiated by the husband.
Final Verdict
The High Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and all criminal proceedings against the accused. It held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, reinforcing safeguards against misuse of Section 498-A.
