IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32740 of 2008 KUSUM SRIVASTAVA @ KUSUM DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 3. 16.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner’s earlier prayer of the same nature was dismissed in Cr. Misc. No. 31445 of 2007 by the order dated 24.7.2007. Though the order does not appear skipping any merit of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one important aspect of the case was left to be touched upon by him and, as such, the renewal prayer. The point which was urged before me is that the petitioner not being legally married to the husband Rajeev Kumar Srivastava was supposed to be a ’kept’ or a ‘concubine’ and, as such, could not be brought in the ambit of the word ‘relative’ as appearing in Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and could not be covered by the mischief of that particular Section. The Court holds a different view on account of a series of decisions which the Court does not want to cite, but which directly relate to the meaning of the term 2 ‘wife’ as appearing in Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure that even if one has a live-in relationship with a man and that is known to the society and they are supposed to be married couple, then the lady would not claim that she would not be the legally married wife of the husband. It is not that the allegations are bald, the allegations do come from the lady who could have some special knowledge of the relationship of the husband under Section 50 of the Evidence Act and if the lady, as she states, was claiming herself as a mere concubine of the married man the same cannot be a reality as regards the relationship of wife. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)