Man Not Speaking To Wife For Days Not Cruelty: Supreme Court In Suicide Case

The Supreme Court, while acquitting a man in his wife's suicide case, has observed that differences are a part and parcel of married life and may result in no contact between partners. According to the court, a husband cannot be convicted of cruelty merely on the ground of not talking to his wife for days.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar acquitted the man who was convicted by the trial court and the Madras High Court under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting his wife to cruelty and sentenced him to a three-year jail term. 

He had not been on talking terms with his wife for 13 days, which led to her death by suicide.

The court said, "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 this particular case was not even one where there was some quarrel between the husband and wife, adding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation of cruelty against the husband - something the high court judgment failed to take into account.

In cases like these, the court clarified that what needs to be determined is whether the gravity or seriousness of the act is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to die by suicide or cause injury or pose danger to her mental health.

The woman died by suicide by hanging while she was staying at her parental home. As alleged, at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs 3 lakh, 20 sovereign gold jewels and other things to the appellant. It was further alleged that the husband often asked the woman to bring money from her parents, while the in-laws consistently agitated the issue of demand for additional dowry, subjecting her to persistent harassment. 

Additionally, the prosecution alleged that the husband reprimanded the woman for visiting her parents against his family's wishes and refused to speak to her over the phone.

It was alleged that this non-communication caused severe mental agony to the wife, resulting in her being forced to die by suicide. 

On such allegations, a case was registered under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC against the appellant and four co-accused persons -  father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two brothers-in-law (one of whom was a juvenile).

The trial was only conducted against four accused persons, while no trial was conducted against the juvenile. 

The High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court, maintaining the conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 498A IPC and also dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the husband. 

The Supreme Court noticed that the substance of the allegation against the husband, which had resulted in his conviction under Section 498A IPC, was his refusal to communicate with his wife over the phone, his displeasure over her going to her parental home without informing the in-laws - which hurt the woman and she was forced to kill herself.

The Bench reiterated that the prosecution had to establish the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt to bring home the charge as alleged against the accused. 

As per the Bench, it was not the accused who had to dispel such a burden, especially when the charge under Section 498A IPC was involved.

The Bench noted that, as per the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court, the woman could not have travelled to Muscat along with the appellant due to pending formalities in her passport, as the visa could not be issued. "Therefore, in the absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen 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", it said.