The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man's girlfriend who was accused of cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- The court determined that a girlfriend does not qualify as a relative of the husband under the law.
- This section only applies to a husband or his relatives.
- The decision limits the legal scope of who can be charged under these specific cruelty provisions.
Who said what2
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
M Nagaprasanna
Justice
1 quote · 1 outlet
“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”
In the article
…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…
Karnataka High Court
1 quote · 1 outlet
“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”
In the article
…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. - ABOUT THE AUTHORHT News DeskFollow the latest breaking news, major developments and agenda-setting stories from India and around the world with the newsdesk at Hindustan Times. Operating round…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Ajit PB · Gagandeep E · Karnataka High Court · M. Nagaprasanna · PM Gopi · Supreme Court
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.