The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling on Friday, clarifying the scope of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It held that a husband cannot be considered guilty of cruelty merely because he did not speak to his wife for a few days.

The court’s verdict came as it acquitted a man who had earlier been convicted by both a trial court and the Madras High Court (HC) in connection with his wife’s death by suicide.

Apex court sets aside man's conviction

A bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chand overturned the husband’s conviction under Section 498A IPC, under which he had been sentenced to three years of jail term.

One of the primary allegations levelled against the accused was that he had not spoken to his wife for 13 days prior to her death. The prosecution cited this period of non-communication as evidence of mental cruelty.

However, after the top court’s bench examined the record, it found no substantive material to support the claim that the husband’s conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of the law.

It observed that merely refraining from speaking to one’s spouse for a limited period without any corroborative evidence of harassment or abuse could not justify a criminal conviction.

“Court must examine nature of conduct”: Apex Court

The SC, in its ruling, emphasised that allegations of cruelty must be supported by convincing evidence demonstrating that the actions of the accused were serious enough to cause grave mental torment, distress, circumstances or injury that could drive a woman to end her life.

The court also noted that the present matter did not involve any major dispute or persistent conflict between the husband and wife.

Top court elaborates on principles linked to Section 498A

Elaborating on the legal principles governing Section 498A cases, the bench remarked that wilful conduct must be of a compelling and serious nature before it can be categorised as cruelty under the criminal law. The Justices said that persistent harassment taking place close to the time of a complaint may serve as a relevant factor while assessing such cases. They, however, cautioned against treating routine marital disagreements or temporary estrangement as criminal offences.

Furthermore, it underscored that petty quarrels and ordinary marital discord do not automatically attract the provisions of Section 498A.