Supreme Court Quashes Dowry Harassment Charges Against Husband’s Girlfriend: Dechamma I.M. vs. State of Karnataka (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 972

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a woman be charged with dowry harassment for being the husband’s girlfriend? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, clarifying who qualifies as a “relative” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in cases of alleged dowry harassment. This judgment has significant implications for how such cases are prosecuted. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On April 19, 2019, the second respondent (complainant) filed a First Information Report (FIR) against her husband, Adishetty, and several others, including the appellant, Dechamma I.M., alleging offences under Section 498A, 504, 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The complainant married Adishetty on November 6, 2017. She alleged that at the time of the marriage, a dowry of ₹3 lakhs, 25 grams of gold ornaments, and other articles were given. She stated that she lived happily in her matrimonial home for six months.

She further alleged that her husband, Adishetty, along with accused numbers 3 and 4, colluded to harass her physically and mentally. The complainant also accused Dechamma I.M., the appellant, of having a prior relationship with Adishetty that continued even after their marriage. It was alleged that when the complainant questioned this, she was assaulted mentally and physically. The appellant also allegedly used abusive language towards the complainant over the phone.

A charge sheet was filed against five accused persons on August 1, 2019, after the investigation. Following this, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this petition, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against her. The High Court dismissed this petition on April 12, 2021. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was granted, leading to the present appeal.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. It states: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with abetment of any offence.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections deal with giving or taking dowry and the penalty for demanding dowry, respectively.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel, Smt. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, argued that even if the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet were taken at face value, no case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, could be made out against the appellant.
• She contended that the allegations were false and fabricated, as the appellant resided 200 kilometers away with her husband.
• Relying on the judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 757], she argued that the appellant could not be considered a “relative” of the husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• She also submitted that the matter had been amicably settled between the complainant and her husband, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent had been passed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel, Shri D.L. Chidananda, supported the High Court’s decision and argued that the charges should not be quashed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage would be a “relative of the husband” for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 757] – Supreme Court of India: This case was crucial in determining that a girlfriend or concubine cannot be considered a “relative” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 757]*: The Supreme Court followed this precedent and held that a girlfriend does not fall under the definition of relative under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal interpretation of the term “relative” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized that a girlfriend does not fall within the ambit of this definition, as established in previous judgments. The absence of any material to show the appellant’s involvement in dowry harassment also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the appellant could be considered a relative under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the precedent set in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 757]. The Court also found no evidence to suggest that the appellant was involved in any dowry-related harassment. The decision was reached by applying the established legal interpretation of “relative” and considering the factual circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court stated, “By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a “relative”. The word “relative” brings within its purview a status. Such a 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 further noted, “Apart from that for bringing a case under Section 498A of IPC, the material placed on record should show that the ill treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.”

The Court concluded, “In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would be nothing else but an abuse of process of law.”

Key Takeaways

• A girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has a romantic or sexual relationship outside of marriage cannot be considered a “relative” of the husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• To establish a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be evidence of ill-treatment connected to dowry demands by the husband or a relative.
• The continuation of criminal proceedings against a person who does not qualify as a “relative” and is not involved in dowry harassment is an abuse of the process of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, specifically concerning the appellant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable, as no specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage cannot be considered a “relative” of the husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another [(2009) 6 SCC 757] and clarifies the scope of “relative” in dowry harassment cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik vs. The State of Karnataka and Another clarifies that a girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage cannot be considered a “relative” of the husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, holding that their continuation would be an abuse of the process of law. This decision reinforces the legal definition of “relative” and provides clarity in cases of alleged dowry harassment.