71. A concubine,whether can be prosicuted for u/s 498-A, IPC ?

The Supreme Court on 6 may,2009 held that a girlfriend is not relative, therefore she can't be prosecuted for dowry or cruelty u/s 498-A, IPC

In criminal Appeal no.938/2009,U Suvetha v. State, the supreme court had occasion to consider as to whether the term "relative of husband of a woman" within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code should be given an

extended meaning so as to cover a girlfriend or concubine of husband ? A bench comprising Justices S P Sinha and R M Lodha, while allowing the appeal of U Suvetha, the alleged girlfriend of Tutus Gunaraj the husband of the complainant, in its judgment noted," By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be relative."

After elaborate discussion of case law the apex court held that the word relative brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

The court said that living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in would not attract the wrath of section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term relative must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. The apex court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and concluded by saying, "We would assume that the term husband would bring within its fold a person who is said to have contracted a marriage with another woman and subjected her to cruelty."

70. Ad-hoc period - whether to be included in length of service

In a bunch of appeals, in State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (civil appeal no 3620/2009 ) decided on 08/05/2009, the apex court has held that

“in order to become "a member of service" candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely (i) the appointment must be in a substantive capacity; (ii) to a post in the service i.e. in a substantive vacancy; (iii) made according to rules; (iv) within the quota prescribed for the source."

The court further held that

Ad-hoc appointment is always to a post but not to the cadre/service and is also not made in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules for regular appointment.--- the position in law as stated

in State of Punjab v. Ishar Singh (2002 (10) SCC 674) and State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kumar ( 2003 (11) SCC 732) clearly lay down that while reckoning

the required length of service the period of ad hoc service has to be excluded.”