SUNITA JHA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 13-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 11 S.C.R. 648 
SUNITA JHA 
V. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 17 45 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498A -
Offence of cruelty -
'Relative of the husband' -
Complaint case filed by 
C 
respondent no.2-wife against her husband and appellant, who 
was living with the accused husband allegedly as his wife -
Discharge application filed by appellant dismissed - Order 
upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Only the husband 
or his relative could be proceeded against u/s.498A - S.498A 
D 
cannot be applied to a person who is not a relation of the 
husband when the alleged offence is said to have been 
committed -
Merely because appellant was living with the 
accused husband of respondent no.2, she did not become a 
family member of respondent no.2's husband - High Court 
E 
erred in bestowing upon the appellant the status of wife and, 
therefore, a family member of respondent no.2's husband -
Doctrine of acknowledgement would not be available in the 
facts of the case - Though there is direct allegation against 
the appellant of cruelty against the respondent no.2, but the 
F 
G 
H 
same would enable the respondent no. 2 to proceed against 
her husband u/s. 49BA and also against the appellant under 
the different provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but 
not u/s. 498A - Doctrine of acknowledgement. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression 'relative of the husband' (as in s.498-A, /PC) 
- Connection of 
Respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against her 
648 
SUNITA JHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 
649 
husband, and the appellant under Section 498A IPC. The 
A 
appellant filed an application for discharge, inter alia, on 
the ground that respondent no.2 had not been examined 
as a witness in the case. During the arguments on the 
said application, the appellant contended that she could 
not be made an accused under Section 498A IPC since 
B 
she was not a relative of respondent no.2's husband and 
the allegations made against her did not make out a case 
of cruelty under the aforesaid Section. However, the 
Magistrate rejected the appellant's application for 
discharge on the ground that there was prima facie c 
evidence for framing of charge against the accused, 
including the appellant, under Section 498A IPc: 
Aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court by way 
of Criminal Revision. The High Court held that since the 
appellant was living with the accused husband of the 
0 
respondent no.2, she must be deemed to have become 
a family member of respondent no.2's husband for the 
purpose of Section 498A IPC, and accordingly affirmed 
the order of the Trial Court. 
In the instant appeal the question arising for 
E 
consideration was: whether the appellant became a 
member of the family of respondent no.2's husband 
merely because she was living with him in his house 
allegedly as his wife. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From a reading of Section 498A, IPC, it is 
clear that it is either the husband or the relative of a 
husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty, who 
could be charged under the said Section. Such provision 
G 
could not apply to a person who was not a relation of the 
husband when the alleged offence is said to have been 
committed. Section 498A IPC is clear and unambiguous 
that only the husband or his relative could be proceeded 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A agai.nst under the said Section for subjecting the wife to 
"cruelty", which has been specially defined in the said 
Section in the Explanation thereto. The High Court 
committed an error in bestowing upon the appellant the 
status of wife and, therefore, a member of the family of 
B respondent no.2's 
husband. 
The 
doctrine 
of 
acknowledgement would not be available in the facts of 
this case. No doubt, there is direct allegation against the 
appellant of cruelty against the respondent No.2, but the 
same would enable the respondent No.2 to proceed 
c against her husband under Section 498A IPC and also 
against the appellant under the different provisions of the 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section 498A 
IPC. [Para 13) [654-F-G; 655-A-B] 
1.2. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and 
D the cognizance taken against the appellant by the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 498A IPC, is 
hereby quashed. [Para 14) [655-C] 
U. Suvetha v. State (2009) 6 SCC 757 - referred to. 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
(200

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.