Extramarital Affair Not 498A Cruelty Unless Likely To Drive Wife To Suicide: the Madras High Court has held that a husband’s illicit relationship, though proved, is not by itself cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and upheld the acquittal of a man in a wife’s suicide case.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by a deceased woman’s brother against the acquittal of her husband under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, holding that a proved extramarital relationship is not cruelty under Section 498A unless it is of a nature likely to drive the wife to suicide, and that the alleged dowry demand was not established [T. Deivakumar v. The State and Another].
Justice Sunder Mohan held that the Trial Court’s reasons for acquittal could not be accepted, but that on an independent assessment of the evidence the prosecution had not proved its case.
How the case reached the Court
According to the prosecution, the woman was married to the second respondent on 14 September 2008 and was subjected to cruelty in connection with a dowry demand around Diwali. It was also alleged that he had an illicit relationship with another woman and did not look after her. She died by suicide on 3 November 2010. A case was first registered as Crime No. 994 of 2010 on her brother’s complaint of a ‘woman missing’. The investigation later led to a final report against the husband under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits.
The Fast Track Mahila Court at Tiruppur acquitted the husband on 23 April 2018 in S.C. No. 31 of 2015, finding that neither the dowry demand nor the illicit relationship was proved, so that the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not be drawn, and that there was no evidence of cruelty of a kind that would drive a woman to suicide. The State did not appeal. The deceased woman’s brother, who was the complainant, challenged the acquittal before the High Court.
What the Court said
The Court first found it perverse to hold the illicit relationship unproved merely because the other woman was not examined. It then turned to the legal effect of that relationship, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 448, and quoted the passage that intimacy with another person during marriage does not, as such, amount to cruelty unless it is of a nature likely to drive the spouse to suicide:
“In this case also, the fact that the second respondent had an illicit relationship has been proved. On facts, this Court is of the view that it was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide. It is well settled that in order to attract the offences under Section 498A of IPC, something more than mere illicit relationship has to be established by the prosecution, which is not so in this case.”
The dowry allegation
On dowry, the Court noted that the complaint of the brother, though it spoke of the illicit relationship, made no mention of any dowry demand. The explanation that the deceased had asked her mother not to reveal the demand to her father or brother did not inspire confidence. The Court said that a brother who alleged an illicit relationship in a ‘woman missing’ complaint would have mentioned a dowry demand had it been made. The villagers who had mediated the dispute spoke only of matrimonial differences over the relationship, and their references to dowry were vague. The Court held the dowry version to be an improvement on the earliest version.
Why the judgment matters
Section 498A treats as cruelty wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, and harassment to coerce a dowry demand. The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s reading that marital infidelity does not automatically meet that threshold and that the prosecution must establish something more.
It also shows the approach of an appellate court that disagrees with the reasons for an acquittal but still examines the evidence afresh before deciding whether to interfere. The Court corrected two findings of the Trial Court as perverse, yet left the acquittal undisturbed.
Case Title: T. Deivakumar v. The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udumalpet Sub Division, Tirupur, and Another [Crl.A. No. 599 of 2018]
Bench: Justice Sunder Mohan, Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
Appearances: K. Sudhakar, Advocate, for the appellant; Sharada Vivek, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State; V. Ayyapparaja, Advocate, for the second respondent
If you or someone you know is in distress, support is available. Tele-MANAS (14416) offers free, confidential mental health support in multiple languages.