The Supreme Court acquitted a man in his wife’s suicide case, observing that normal marital differences may sometimes lead to spouses not speaking for days. The Court held that a husband cannot be convicted for cruelty under Section 498A IPC solely because he did not communicate with his wife for a period of time.
The Supreme Court, while acquitting a man in a case involving his wife’s suicide, said that normal differences between spouses can be part of married life and may even lead to situations where partners do not speak for a period of time.
The Court further held that a husband cannot be convicted for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC just because he did not talk to his wife for days.
A Bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar set aside the conviction and three-year jail sentence imposed on the accused by both the trial court and the Madras High Court.
ALSO READ: ‘Ineffective and Misused’: Supreme Court Flags Serious Gaps in India’s Anti-Dowry Laws
The courts below had held him guilty of subjecting his wife to cruelty.
As per the allegations, the husband and wife were not on speaking terms for 13 days, and during that time the wife died by suicide.
The Supreme Court observed,
“In the absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for 13 days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in the facts of this case.”
The Court noted that the present case was not even one involving any quarrel between the spouses. It also said there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge of cruelty, and that the High Court’s decision did not properly account for this lack of proof.
The Court explained that, in such cases, the key question is whether the alleged acts considered in their seriousness and gravity are such that they are likely to drive a woman to die by suicide, cause injury, or pose a danger to her mental health.
In this case, the wife died by hanging while staying at her parental home. The prosecution alleged that at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs 3 lakh, 20 sovereign gold jewels, and other items to the accused.
It was further claimed that the husband repeatedly asked her to bring money from her parents, while the in-laws allegedly continued to press the issue of additional dowry and harassed her.
The prosecution also alleged that the husband reprimanded her for visiting her parents against his family’s wishes and that he refused to speak to her over the phone. The prosecution argued that this non-communication caused her severe mental anguish and compelled her to take her life.
A case was registered against the husband under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC along with four co-accused—father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two brothers-in-law (one of whom was a juvenile). However, trial proceedings were carried out only against four accused, and no trial took place against the juvenile.
The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction for the Section 498A offence and also dismissed the husband’s criminal revision petition.
The Supreme Court noted that the foundation of the prosecution’s case against the husband leading to the Section 498A conviction was mainly his alleged refusal to communicate with his wife over the phone and his displeasure when she went to her parental home without informing the in-laws, which the prosecution claimed affected her deeply and contributed to her suicide.
ALSO READ: Protection for Women or Misused Legal Weapon?: Section 498A IPC Explained
Reiterating legal principles, the Bench stated that the prosecution must prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the charge as alleged. It also emphasized that it is not for the accused to disprove the prosecution’s case on such allegations, particularly when the case involves a charge under Section 498A.
The Bench further pointed out that, based on the findings of the trial court and the High Court, the wife could not have traveled to Muscat with the husband due to pending passport formalities, as the visa could not be issued.
Therefore, the Court held that in the absence of credible evidence supporting the allegation, mere non-communication for 13 days without cogent proof cannot amount to cruelty in the circumstances of this case.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Misuse of Section 498A IPC