U. SUVETHA versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 902 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 902 
A 
U. SUVETHA 
V. 
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER 
Criminal Appeal No.938 of 2009 
B 
MAY 06, 2009 
(S.B. SINHA AND R.M. LODHA, JJ) 
PENAL CODE, 1860 : 
498-A, Explanation - 'Ret&iive' of husband - Connotation 
c of - FIR against girl friend of husband - HELD: Girl friend or 
concubine of husband would not be covered within the term 
'relative' - The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status 
conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption - If no 
marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative 
D of another would not arise. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Penal provision - Held: Deserves strict construction. 
WORDS AND PHRASES: 
E 
Expression 'relative of husband' as occurring in s.498-A, 
/PC - Connotation of 
An F.l.R. alleging commission of offence punishable 
u/s 498-A IPC was filed against the appellant describing 
F her as 'girl friend'/'concubine' of the husband of the first 
informant. The appellant filed an application for discharge, 
inter alia, on the premise that the allegation made against 
her in the F.l.R., even if it be given face value, did not 
disclose an offence u/s 498A, IPC. The application was 
dismissed and so also the revision petition. 
G 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
before the Court was whether the term "relative of 
c 
~ 
husband of a woman" within the meaning of s.498-A, IPC 
should be given an extended meaning. 
H 
902 
U SUVETHA V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
903 
AND ANOTHER 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 An offence in terms of s.498-A, IPC is 
committed by the persons specified therein. They have 
to be the 'husband' or his 'relative'. Either the husband of 
the woman or his relative must have subjected her to 
B 
cruelty within the provision. A girl friend or even a 
concubine cannot be said to be a 'relative'. The word 
'relative' brings within its purview a status which must be 
conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. In the 
absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must 
be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. c 
Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, 
son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson 
or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any 
person. If no marriage has taken place, the question of 
one being relative of another would not arise. Applying D 
• 
the principles laid down in various decisions, the appellant 
is not a relative of the husband of the first informant. [para 
11, 12, 18 and 21] [909-D, H; 914-A; 916-F] 
Shivcharan Lal Verma and another v. State of M. P, (2002 
(?) Crimes 177 SC = JT (2002) 2 SC 641; Rajeti Lax mi v. State E 
., 
of Andhra Pradesh 1 (2007) DMC 797; Ranjana Gopalrao 
Thorat v. State of Maharashtra 2007 CRI. L.J .3866; John ldicul/a 
v. State ofKerala 2005 M.l.J. (Crl.) 841; Vungarala Yedukondalu 
-~ 
v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 CRl.L.J. 1538; and Reema 
Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004) 3SCC 199 - referred to. 
F 
Advanced Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar- Volume 
· 4, 3rd Edition; and Random House Webster's Concise College 
Dictionary p.691 - referred to. 
2.1 The provision of s.498-A IPC is a penal one. It, G 
thus, deserves strict construction. Ordinarily, save and 
-'-. 
except where a contextual meaning is required to be given 
to a statute, a penal provision is required to be construed 
strictly. [para 13] [911-F] 
T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore 
H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 2007 (8) SCALE 354; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab 2008 (9) 
SCALE 681 - relied on. 
2.2 The word 'cruelty' having been defined in terms 
of Explanation to s.498-A of the Penal Code, 1860, no other 
meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another 
B woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the 
husband for the purpose of judicial separation or 
dissolution of marriage but the same would not attract 
the wrath of s.498A of the Penal Code.[para 11) (909-C] 
2.3 In the instant case, relationship of the appellant 
C with the husband of the first informant is said to have been 
existing from before the marriage. Indisputably they lived 
separately. For all intent and purport the husband was 
also living at a separate place. The purported torture is 
said to have been inflicted by the husband upon the first 
D informant either at her in-law's place or at her parents' 
place. There is no allegation that appellant had any role 
to play in that rega
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.