The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified the legal interpretation of the term "relative" in the context of allegations of cruelty under the Indian law in its ruling. They determined that a friend does not fall within the legal definition of a "relative" as defined by the law.

Accordingly, the friend of a husband cannot face prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly causing cruelty to his friend’s wife, observed the bench of Justice Anil Pansare and Justice MM Nerlikar.

In their ruling, the judges stated, “A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither a blood relative nor has any having any relation through marriage or adoption.

Brief Facts:

The case stemmed from a First Information Report(FIR) filed by the wife(complainant) against her husband, his parents and his friend whom she alleged subjected her to cruelty.

She claimed that her husband’s friend would frequently visit their matrimonial home and instigate the husband to demand a plot of land and a car from her father.

She further alleged that the friend provoked her husband to stop cohabiting with her and incited him to send her back to her parental home if the demands were not fulfilled.

The context of the court's decision arose from the prosecution's plea for a broader interpretation of the term “relative” arguing that it should encompass anyone who instigates or harasses the wife.

However, the court referred to a prior Supreme Court ruling which held that even a girlfriend or a woman involved in a romantic or sexual relationship with a man outside of a marriage does not qualify as a “relative” under section 489A.

Following this line of reasoning, the High Court concluded that the status of a friend cannot be equated with that of a relative within the meaning of section 498A.

In their order the bench stated, “Therefore, considering the above facts and upon plain reading of Section 498-A of the IPC, we conclude that a friend of the husband does not fall under the definition of a ‘relative’ as contemplated under the provisions.”

Consequently, the court determined that proceedings against the husband’s friend were to be quashed. But the case against the husband and his parents would proceed.

Appearance:

Advocate SA Mohta appeared for the husband, friend,and other accused.

Additional Public Prosecutor SS Jachak appeared for the State.

Advocate S Patrikar appeared for the wife.