From landmark Supreme Court rulings to ground-level misuse, this article unpacks how Section 498A defines ‘husband’ and ‘relative’, protecting the “girlfriend” of the husband.
Introduction: The Status of the Husband’s Girlfriend
Like all love stories, it starts with two people, a promise, and a future. But that promise falters somewhere in the middle of “I do” and “I’m done.” And what ought to have been a private conclusion turns into a public conflict.
In India, silence isn’t always the end of heartbreak. Section 498A is sometimes the last part. Over the years, a law intended to shield women from abuse has become a weapon in the wrong hands; one that is cruel, emotional, and unforgiving. When a marriage breaks down, 498A frequently turns into the last battleground where everyone is treated fairly, including the husband, in-laws, and even the woman who joined his life later—the so-called “girlfriend.” She turns into the antagonist of someone else’s tale, named in false police report she never saw coming, and charged with a crime she didn’t commit falling in love with the wrong man at the wrong time.
However, the law has limits, just like feelings. The Supreme Court once observed this and posed a straightforward query: “Can love, by itself, be cruelty? Can a girlfriend, by law, be called a relative?” The answer changed everything.
What Section 498a Really Covers?
One of the most talked-about and occasionally the most contested partition of Indian criminal law is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was first implemented during a period when society was dealing with the grim realities of dowry deaths and domestic abuse. The goal was admirable: to give women who were voiceless inside marriage a legal weapon. However, its reach has frequently brought up challenging issues, as is the case with any effective tool. It has walked a tightrope between justice and abuse, between protection and persecution, over the years. Section 498A was not intended to criminalize extramarital relationships; rather, it was intended to address actual cruelty rather than emotional disappointment.
Section 498A clearly states that: “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 a fine.”
In this single line, the entire legislative philosophy rests on two crucial expressions:
- Husband or relative of the husband, and
- Subjects such a woman to cruelty.
This clause was never intended to apply to everyone connected to the husband; rather, it was intended to target those who can exert control or influence in the matrimonial home and have a recognized legal or blood connection.
The Origin of This Section
Prior to 1983, cruelty committed by a husband or his family was not specifically covered by the law. Newlywed women’s suicides, bride burnings, and dowry deaths have all increased because of the social pressure of dowry demands. In response to mounting indignation, the legislature passed Section 498A, which recognized cruelty as a public offence that required government action in addition to being a private wrong. But as time went on, the courts noticed an unsettling trend: complaints in which it was difficult to distinguish between genuine cruelty and personal grudges. In the name of matrimonial cruelty, extended families, distant relatives, and even unrelated people have occasionally been included in FIRs. Thus began the judicial endeavor to bring a law that was in danger of losing its moral core back into balance.
“Cruelty” Has Two Faces
The explanation to Section 498A defines cruelty in two ways:
- Physical or Mental Cruelty: Any willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (mental or physical). This captures serious, life-threatening behavior, not routine domestic disagreements.
- Dowry-related Harassment: Harassment with a view to coercing the woman or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security. These targets economic exploitation masked as marriage tradition.
The Legal Character of the Offence
Section 498A is a cognizable (police can arrest and investigate without a warrant), non-bailable (Bail is not automatic), and non-compoundable offence (once filed, the case cannot be privately withdrawn without court approval). These strict procedural features were meant to ensure seriousness, not to encourage weaponization. Over time, the judiciary has repeatedly reminded us that greater power demands greater responsibility — both in invoking the section and in investigating it.
The Legal Question: Can a Girlfriend Be Considered a “relative”?
The question of whether a woman who has no legal or biological ties to her husband can be considered his “relative” just because they have an intimate or affectionate relationship is at the center of innumerable matrimonial prosecutions. This question has put to the test not only the limits of Section 498A IPC but also the fundamental tenet of criminal law: should it punish only legally defined wrongs, or should it also protect feelings?
FIRs that named not only the husband and his immediate family but also anyone else who was emotionally connected to him, such as friends, coworkers, business partners, and more frequently, the woman who was allegedly his girlfriend or companion, became frequent in the years after Section 498A was introduced. The wife’s suffering was real in many of these complaints, but her solution was inappropriate. What started out as an effort to penalize cruelty turned into a means of turning psychological distress into legal harm. Such FIRs were filed by police, frequently without legal review, which resulted in arrests and social stigma before the courts even investigated whether the law permitted such inclusion. The judiciary was forced to intervene and establish the precise definition of a “relative” under Section 498A due to the unchecked growth of the accused list.
Statutory Interpretation of the Word “Relative”
Although the word “relative” may seem commonplace, its meaning is precise in the legal context. A statute’s structure and intent must be considered when reading it. Family members who have a shared influence within the marriage and can control the wife socially or domestically are covered by Section 498A. Consequently, courts had to decide:
- Does a girlfriend share such a position of authority or proximity?
- Can emotional intimacy be equated with a legal relationship?
The answer, as later judgements confirmed, is no. In law, a “relative” is someone connected by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Judicial Recognition of this Problem
Courts throughout India started to notice a trend: years of litigation for individuals who had no legal connection to the marriage, arrests made on speculative charges, and FIRs naming unrelated women. This tendency compelled the courts to state what Parliament had not explicitly stated: that criminal liability under Section 498A can only result from legal and familial proximity, not from moral or emotional factors.
When Firs Become Family Traps: The Collateral Damage of Section 498A
Too often, what started out as a shield for suffering wives has turned into a web that ensnares whole families. The husband, parents, married sisters who live far away, and even family members who were not involved in the marriage can all be listed in a single Section 498A FIR. The distinction between the accused and those involved becomes hazy in this haste to punish, and suddenly, entire households are viewed as criminal enterprises.
This misuse has been repeatedly brought to the attention of Indian courts. The Supreme Court cautioned in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) that “many complaints reflect exaggerated versions of small incidents.” The Court had to issue arrest-control orders in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) because police actions were frequently automated FIR first, inquiry later. This means emotional destruction for men and their families before they can get legal help. Interrogations are conducted on elderly parents, and suspicion damages professional reputations.
Even a girlfriend, who is not legally related but is emotionally connected, is dragged into the tangle of this dragnet and is blamed for her proximity rather than her behavior. The purpose of Section 498A was to safeguard cruelty victims, not to invent new ones.
The Other Woman, the Forgotten Victim: When the Law Punishes Love
The other woman is a silent victim caught in the crossfire of failing marriages and criminal accusations. Her name shows up in police complaints as if affection were a crime, even though she is neither a wife nor a relative. For her, a relationship becomes a criminal record; love becomes litigation. Most of these women are bystanders to a relationship that ended long before they entered it; they are not conspirators. Their social humiliation, however, happens quickly and cruelly. She is labelled a “home-breaker” by society and a “co-accused” by the system. She is questioned, humiliated, and occasionally arrested; not for her actions, but for the people she cared about.
The Supreme Court clarified in U. Suvetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) that a girlfriend is not considered a “relative of the husband” for the purposes of Section 498A. To bring charges against her would be to punish feelings rather than facts. However, many police stations still include these women in FIRs despite this historic clarification, frequently at the request of a vengeful spouse or as an act of emotional retaliation.
The darker side of abuse is revealed by this weaponization of heartbreak, which harms innocent women who are accused of being “the other woman” in addition to men and their families. Despite having no legal connection to the complainant, they lose their peace, dignity, and reputation.
Judicial Interpretation: The Position of the Supreme Court
Courts faced a recurring issue when Section 498A abuses began to surface nationally: where does the law end and emotion begin? It was one thing for a wife to accuse her husband or in-laws of cruelty, but it was another to accuse someone who had no relationship to her and was not a member of the marital household. However, the “other woman” the alleged girlfriend began to appear as an accused in countless FIRs. She was charged with cruelty under Section 498A. This raised a constitutional question about fairness and statutory interpretation: Can the criminal justice system punish someone who isn’t legally related to the husband simply for participating in the marital emotional conflict?
Landmark Case: U. Suvetha V. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 6 SCC 757
The judicial scope of Section 498A was established by this case. The wife in this case filed a complaint against her husband and his family, as well as the woman he was allegedly seeing. Accused of “mental cruelty,” the girlfriend contested her inclusion, claiming that she was not legally considered a “relative of the husband.” The Supreme Court agreed. “The term ‘relative’”, the Court observed, “must be understood in its plain, legal sense someone related by blood, marriage, or adoption. A girlfriend or concubine cannot be included within this term.” The Bench emphasized that personal vengeance cannot be satisfied by extending the criminal law. It stated that unless Parliament itself chooses to do so, the law cannot turn moral wrongs into crimes. The first distinct line was drawn by this historic ruling: 498A is limited to relationships that are recognized by the law, not by sentiment.
Reasoning Behind the Ruling
Two guiding principles served as the foundation for the Court’s reasoning: Literal Interpretation of Penal Law:
- Strict interpretation is required of penal statutes. The courts are unable to create new categories of people when the legislature specifies “husband or relative.”
- Incorporating a girlfriend would require judicial legislation, which the Court adamantly declined to do.
The Court recognized that although a husband’s extramarital affair may cause great suffering, morality by itself does not establish criminal responsibility. “Law does not punish immorality unless it becomes illegality,” the judiciary reminded us. The Court maintained the spirit of legislative intent behind Section 498A as well as the integrity of criminal jurisprudence by restating these boundaries.
Reema Agarwal v. Anupam (2004) 3 SCC 199
Prior to U. Suvetha, the Supreme Court had made it clear in Reema Agarwal v. Anupam that criminal laws such as Section 498A must only apply to those who have a valid legal connection. It held that: “A person who is not legally wedded cannot be treated as ‘husband’, nor can his companion be treated as ‘relative’.”
This early observation laid the foundation for the later and more explicit ruling in U. Suvetha. Following U. Suvetha, several High Courts echoed the same reasoning.
Exceptions: When Can a Girlfriend Still Face Charges?
In U. Suvetha v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court established a clear line: a girlfriend cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC since she is not a “relative of the husband.” However, the Court also left open a narrow but important avenue: the girlfriend may still be held accountable under other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, rather than 498A, if she actively engages in cruel acts or aids and abets the husband in committing them. This distinction is crucial because it guarantees that real wrongdoers are held accountable while shielding innocent people from emotional abuse. They can she accountable under the following provisions:
Abetment under Section 109 IPC
Defined as motivating, provoking, or assisting someone in committing a crime, is covered under Section 109 IPC. “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” So, if the girlfriend was proven to have:
- Actively participated in pressuring the wife for dowry,
- Encouraged or advised the husband to mentally or physically harm his wife, or
- Conspired to humiliate or drive the wife out of the marriage
Then, she becomes liable as an abettor rather than a “relative.”
Common Intention under Section 34 IPC
Section 34 of the IPC covers actions taken by several people in support of a common objective. As if they were the only ones who performed the entire act, each participant is held responsible. For instance, if evidence shows that:
- The husband and the girlfriend jointly plotted to harass or threaten the wife, or
- The girlfriend took direct part in acts that constituted cruelty
Then she could be charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution must prove both participation and intention, which is a very high standard of proof in this case. Courts have emphasized that a romantic association alone does not imply common intention.
Judicial Warnings Against Loose Allegations
The judiciary has been firm in rejecting vague or vindictive allegations:
In Anita v. State of Maharashtra (2016), the Bombay High Court observed that “a mere allegation that the husband was in a relationship does not make the other woman a criminal.”
The Delhi High Court (2021) further clarified that ‘co-accused by convenience’ persons added only to exert emotional pressure must be struck out during the investigation itself.
The Delhi High Court in Rajeev v. State (2019) reiterated: “The mere existence of another relationship, however distasteful to the spouse, cannot be treated as an act of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.” In other words, the law does not punish heartbreak – it punishes harm.
Your Legal Survival Guide: Steps to Take When Love Turns Into Litigation
Panic is the initial response when relationships fall apart and accusations start, but the law encourages preparation rather than panic. Every man facing emotional litigation or falsely accused under Section 498A needs to understand that the first defense is knowledge. A useful road map for safeguarding your freedom, honor, and legal status when love becomes a formal complaint is provided below.
| Stage | What to do? | Relevant Provision | Purpose |
| Before FIR | Collect all messages, calls, and threats showing coercion or misuse. Keep digital and written records. | Section 482 CrPC | Helps in future quashing petitions before the High Court. |
| After FIR registration | Apply immediately for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court or High Court. Avoid surrender unless advised by counsel. | Section 438 CrPC | Protects from arrest; preserves liberty during investigation |
| During Investigation | Cooperate with police, but insist on written notices and lawful summons under Arnesh Kumar guidelines | Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) | Prevents illegal or mechanical arrests. |
| During the trial | Maintain detailed evidence of false statements, contradictions, and misuse. | Section 340 CrPC | Enables filing for perjury (false evidence) later. |
| After Acquittal | File for malicious prosecution or defamation to reclaim dignity and compensation | Civil suit / Section 500 IPC | Holds false complainants accountable; sets deterrence. |
Analysis: Misuse, Men’s Rights & Legal Boundaries
Men’s Rights Perspective: A Fight for Fairness, Not Superiority
Making sure that justice is upheld is the problem here, not denying women justice. For every instance of true cruelty, there are others in which unsubstantiated accusations have led to years of legal action, humiliation, and arrest of innocent men and their families. The “girlfriend” being mentioned in these grievances represents something more profound: the breakdown of reason in highly emotional court cases. The distinction between morality and legality vanishes when a personal betrayal is transformed into a criminal charge, and the law turns into a tool of emotional revenge. Therefore, both must be protected for there to be true gender justice: The female victim of actual cruelty, and the man who is falsely accused.
In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court ruled: “The provision’s goal is to prevent cruelty to women, not to punish innocent people.” The provision’s misuse is equally abhorrent.
Landmark Rulings That Saved Innocent Men
In the long judicial journey of Section 498A, certain verdicts became turning points, not just for men, but for the very idea of fairness in matrimonial law. Each of these rulings reaffirmed that justice must protect the innocent as firmly as it punishes the guilty.
- U. Suvetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) – The Supreme Court drew a historic line, holding that a girlfriend or concubine is not a “relative of the husband.” Love may hurt, but it cannot be punished.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – The Court curbed mechanical arrests under 498A, reminding police that liberty cannot be lost on mere allegations.
- Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005) – Clarified that the object of 498A is protection, not persecution; misuse of law is itself an injustice.
- Rajeev v. State (Delhi HC 2019) – Held that infidelity or an affair, however painful, is not “cruelty” unless accompanied by deliberate harassment.
Conclusion: Drawing the Line Between Emotion and Law
Every law begins with compassion and Section 498A was no different. It was born to protect women from cruelty, not to criminalize human relationships. But as emotions began to spill into FIRs, and heartbreaks were translated into criminal allegations, the courts were compelled to step in and ask a timeless question: “Where does the law end, and where does emotion begin?” The answer, delivered through judgements like U. Suvetha v. State of Tamil Nadu, restored that crucial balance; law cannot punish love, and justice cannot avenge emotion.
The judiciary’s restraint in expanding the meaning of “relative” under Section 498A is not a failure of empathy; it is a triumph of legality. By refusing to equate a girlfriend with a “relative”, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence no one shall be punished except by clear law. Because in a society where emotions easily become accusations, and accusations easily become arrests, boundaries are not limitations they are safeguards. The line that separates emotion from law is the very line that separates justice from revenge.
The Two Sides of Justice
For decades, Indian courts have walked a difficult path: to protect women genuinely suffering cruelty while also preventing innocent men and unrelated individuals from being destroyed by false or exaggerated claims. Every time a false case is filed, it doesn’t just hurt a man; it weakens the credibility of real victims who need this law the most. True justice demands that compassion be matched by caution and rights be balanced with responsibilities. Gender shouldn’t determine innocence. And just because a relationship didn’t work out doesn’t mean guilt. “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,” the Supreme Court has frequently stated. Men’s rights aim for that visibility of justice, not privilege, but equality.
The Broader Lesson: Let Law Be Law
Often, when love fails, it leaves behind sadness, anger, and betrayal. But rather than serving as a platform for emotions, the courtroom must remain a sanctuary for the evidence. In criminal law, sentiments are not facts, and morality is not mens rea. The Supreme Court’s steadfast stance has served as a reminder to the country that the goal of the law is to regulate behavior, not to alleviate emotional suffering. This line upholds the objectivity of justice and human dignity for both men and women.
Section 498A protects women from cruelty, not from heartbreak. A girlfriend is not a “relative”, and emotion is not an offence. The misuse of protective laws endangers their moral authority. True justice lies not in gendered sympathy but in equal legality.
Justice is ultimately about maintaining the balance, not picking sides. The innocent must be protected by the same law that protects the oppressed. And the Supreme Court has reminded us that the core of civilized law is that balance. Because no one not even justice itself remains innocent when the law begins to exact revenge on love.
Leave A Comment