Can Husband's Girlfriend Be Booked for Cruelty Under Section 85 BNS? Karnataka HC Answers
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman paramour, ruling that a girlfriend cannot be classified as a 'relative' under Section 85 of the BNS and thus cannot be prosecuted for marital cruelty. 'A paramour of the husband - accused No.1 cannot be termed as a relative of the husband', the court said.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a woman paramour cannot be prosecuted for the offence of marital cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), establishing that an extra-marital partner does not qualify as a relative of the husband. The ruling came from Justice M. Nagaprasanna while hearing a criminal petition that sought to challenge ongoing legal proceedings originating from a domestic dispute.
Background of the Case
The legal challenge was brought forward by a woman who had been named as a co-accused in a complaint filed by a wife. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had ruined her married life and subjected her to intimidation, reports Bar and Bench. Daughter-in-Law Not Obligated To Maintain Mother-in-Law After Husband’s Death Unless Gift Deed Specifies, Rules Karnataka High Court.
A local trial court had initially taken cognisance of the case, issuing charges under multiple statutory provisions. These included accusations of subjecting a wife to cruelty, using criminal force, intentional insult, criminal intimidation under the BNS, and separate allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Seeking relief, the petitioner approached the High Court to have the criminal case dismissed.
Legal Reasoning and Precedents
During the proceedings, the High Court emphasised that criminal liability under Section 85 of the BNS (which corresponds to Section 498A of the erstwhile IPC) strictly applies to the husband or a relative of the husband. Relying on established jurisprudence, the bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dechamma IM @ Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka, which explicitly determined that a romantic partner or girlfriend of a married individual cannot be construed as a statutory relative. The Supreme Court previously affirmed that a "relative" status must be conferred strictly by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Invoking this legal benchmark, Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted: "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".
Court Ruling
Finding that the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under the BNS provisions and the Dowry Prohibition Act were legally missing with respect to the petitioner, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against her. Advocates Gagandeep E and Ajit PB represented the petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader Rashmi Patel appeared for the State, and advocate PM Gopi represented the complainant wife.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Sep 24, 2026 02:05 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
