The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that a brief period of non-communication between spouses does not automatically amount to cruelty under the law.
Case Background
Jayesh Kanna, an engineer employed in Muscat, Oman, was convicted after his wife Sangeetha died by suicide at her parental home on 31 January 2015. The prosecution alleged that after Sangeetha moved to her parents' house without informing her in-laws, her husband refused to speak with her over the phone, causing mental distress that led to her suicide.
The trial court convicted Jayesh under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 10,000. The Madras High Court later upheld this conviction.
Supreme Court's Observations
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar found that the prosecution had failed to establish conduct severe enough to attract criminal liability. The sole basis for the conviction, the court noted, was that the husband had not spoken to his wife for just 13 days.
The bench found even this allegation to be poorly supported by evidence. The prosecution had relied on oral testimony and WhatsApp records showing no messages were exchanged. The court noted that "not sending messages over WhatsApp is also not sufficient since the conversation may have been made through normal phone call also."
The husband argued that he had tried to reach his wife but her phone was not working, and that he had called her father instead. No call records were produced to contradict this claim.
Legal Precedent
Citing its earlier ruling in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, the apex court reiterated that cruelty under Section 498A must be established "continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time" and that "petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC."
The court said that no cruelty had been alleged or proved during the time the couple actually lived together — from their marriage on 2 November 2014 until the husband left for Muscat on 29 November 2014. It further noted that it was "not a case where any allegation of harassment and cruelty has been proved during stay of the deceased with the appellant from the date of marriage till the appellant left from India to Muscat."
Final Verdict
Setting aside the conviction, the court held that "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 further added that "differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication."
The court concluded that "the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC" and that "findings of conviction on proof of cruelty and harassment are without any cogent evidence."
The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the husband was acquitted. The court also directed that his passport, which had been withheld because of the conviction, be returned to him.
About the Author
TOI Legal Desk
The TOI Legal Desk is a dedicated team of journalists committed to tracking and reporting on courts, legal developments, and judicial proceedings across the country and world.
