Mere non-communication with wife, sans evidence, not enough for cruelty charge: Supreme Court

New Delhi: Differences between husband and wife are a normal part of married life and may even lead to periods of non-communication, the Supreme Court has observed while acquitting a man convicted of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code following his wife’s suicide.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar emphasised that whether an act amounts to mental cruelty must be examined in the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

“What may be cruelty for one person may not be cruelty for another,” the court noted, adding that there cannot be a uniform thumb rule.

For an act to qualify as cruelty under the provision, it must be grave enough to drive a woman to suicide or cause danger to her mental health. A petty quarrel or isolated incident cannot attract the charge, it said.

The court set aside the conviction of Jayesh Kanna, an engineer working in Muscat, Oman, holding that mere non-communication with his wife for around 13 days, without any cogent supporting evidence, did not meet the legal threshold of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

According to the case details, Jayesh married Sangeetha on November 2, 2014.

The couple lived together only until November 29, 2014, when Jayesh left for Muscat. Sangeetha stayed briefly with her in-laws before moving to her parental home in Coimbatore on January 18, 2015.

She died by suicide on January 31, 2015, by hanging at her parents’ house.

The prosecution alleged that Jayesh and his family demanded additional dowry and harassed Sangeetha.

Specifically, it was claimed that Jayesh refused to speak to her over the phone after she went to her parents’ house without consulting her in-laws, causing her severe mental agony that led to her suicide.

The trial court acquitted all other accused — Jayesh’s father, mother, and two brothers-in-law — for lack of evidence. Jayesh was also acquitted under Section 304B (dowry death) but convicted under Section 498A and sentenced to three years in jail with a fine of Rs 10,000.

The Madras High Court upheld the conviction in January 2023.

Allowing Jayesh’s appeal, the court observed that the only allegation against him was his alleged refusal to communicate with his wife during her stay at her parental home.

“The prosecution was duty-bound to prove the allegation of lack of communication through call details of the deceased, the appellant, and her parents,” the bench said.

However, no such evidence was produced.

The court noted that the appellant claimed he tried to contact Sangeetha but could not because her phone was not working, and he had spoken to her father instead.

The court further pointed out that WhatsApp chats showing no messages were sent were insufficient, as conversations could have occurred through regular phone calls.

“In the absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot... fall within the ambit of cruelty,” the bench held.

It also noted that there were no allegations of harassment or cruelty during the brief period the couple lived together after marriage. Sangeetha could not join her husband in Muscat due to pending passport formalities.

The court held that the judgments of the trial court and the High Court suffered from improper appreciation of evidence and set them aside. It directed the return of Jayesh’s passport.