Skip to main content

'Relative' of husband must be by blood, marriage or adoption: SC

A person cannot be treated as a relative for prosecuting him in a dowry death case unless he is related to the husband by "blood, marriage or adoption", the Supreme Court has held.

The apex court, however, made it clear this does not mean that he/she cannot be tried for any other offence like abetment of suicide.

"We have no manner of doubt that the word 'relative of the husband' in Section 304B (dowry death) of the IPC would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption," a bench of justices C K Prasad and P C Ghose said.

The court passed the order while deciding the appeal filed by Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision of setting aside the summons issued against a man as an accused in a dowry death case.

The man was summoned as an accused in the case by the trial court which had held that he was a relative of the husband of the deceased woman and was also involved in the offence.

However, the apex court said the man, who was the brother of aunt of the victim's husband, does not fall in the definition of relative of husband under the statute.

The bench noted that Section 304B of the IPC gives an impression that "when a woman dies by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage, her husband or any relative of her husband shall be deemed to have committed the offence of dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or by any relative of her husband".

This section, therefore, exposes the husband of the woman or any relative of her husband for the commission of offence of the dowry death, it noted.

The apex court upheld the high court order and said,"When we apply this principle the respondent herein is not related to the husband of the deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Relative-of-husband-must-be-by-blood-marriage-or-adoption-SC/articleshow/37743171.cms?intenttarget=no&utm_source=TOI_AShow_OBWidget&utm_medium=Int_Ref&utm_campaign=TOI_AShow

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.