Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and Nitin Borkar allowed the girlfriend’s plea on January 18, and quashed the December 2022 FIR only against her. The FIR was registered with Surgana police station (Nashik Rural) under IPC sections, including 498 A (cruelty to wife by husband or his relatives).

The couple had married in July 2016. The wife alleged that her husband and his parents subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. Her husband was having an extra-marital relationship which led to frequent quarrels between them. She claimed he received WhatsApp messages from his girlfriend and that he intends to marry her.

The judges cited Supreme Court’s 2009 verdict that referred to the two-fold definition of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498 A. Cruel is a conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (mental or physical). It is harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her, or any person related to her, to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The apex court held that “by no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in any etymological sense be a relative”. Also, “such a status (of relative) must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption”.

HC judges said thus “the applicant is not a relative of the husband”. They noted that the only allegation against her is that she has an extra marital affair with the husband and that he has been pressurising his wife for divorce in order to marry her.

the Bombay HC has dismissed an FIR lodged against the girlfriend of a man, who was implicated by his wife in a domestic violence case. The court said that girlfriend  is not a relative of the husband & can’t be held accountable for the allegations made against her. 

They noted that there are “no allegations of abetment” against the girlfriend and the allegations, “even if accepted in its entirety, do not disclose any cognisable offence” against her. “In such circumstances, subjecting her to face criminal prosecution will be an abuse of process of law,” they said.