The Karnataka High Court recently held that a husband’s girlfriend cannot be accused of cruelty to and intimidating the wife under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The court made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against the woman paramour of a man, who had been accused by his wife of the offence of cruelty under Section 85 of the BNS, Bar and Bench reported.
Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 penalises a husband or his relative who subjects a woman to cruelty, and carries a maximum imprisonment term of up to three years along with a fine.
Why did the court quash proceedings against the paramour?
Justice M Nagaprasanna relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dechamma IM @ Dechamma Koushik v State of Karnataka. The apex court had, in the case, held that a girlfriend of a married man cannot be considered his relative.
“In the light of the bedrock of the law elucidated by the Apex Court, if the facts obtaining in the case at hand are observed, a paramour of the husband – accused No.1 cannot be termed as a relative of the husband,” the Supreme Court had noted then.
What was this case?
The woman paramour of the married man had approached the Karanataka HC after a trial court took cognisance of a criminal case registered against her. The complaint had alleged offences including subjecting his wife to cruelty, assault or use of criminal force against her, criminal intimidation and intentional insult under the BNS.
The complaint had also accused her of the offence of taking dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Advocates Gagandeep E and Ajit PB appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate PM Gopi appeared for the wife, according to Bar and Bench.
Also Read | ‘Owner didn’t take precautions’: Delhi police tells HC on Satya Niketan collapse
In its order, the Karnataka HC held that a girlfriend or any woman the husband had relations with “could not be construed as a relative”, thus diminishing the grounds for a case under Section85 of the BNS. The court stated that even if a case was brought against the paramour 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.”
“Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will show that there is no averment or material to show that the appellant was in any way concerned with causing harassment to respondent No. 2 on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry,” the high court noted.
