Taunting Wife, Not Letting Her Watch TV Is Not Cruelty, Rules Bombay HC; Reprieve For Accused Family

Mumbai: Taunting a wife, not allowing her to visit temples alone or making her sleep on a carpet cannot be considered as “cruelty” under IPC Section 498A, Bombay High Court has ruled.

Among other allegations against a man and his family were taunting the woman for the food she cooked, not allowing her to interact with neighbours or watch TV, reported LiveLaw.

The accused were convicted under IPC sections 498A and 306 (abetment to suicide) as their actions allegedly led to the woman’s suicide in 2002.

Convicted by a trial court in 2004, the accused had appealed to the high court.

The high court’s order noted that the deceased woman was not allowed to throw garbage alone and also asked to fetch water at midnight. Such allegations of “cruelty” cannot be considered as “severe” under the concerned section, as it concerned the domestic affairs of a household, the bench said.

Hence, it cannot be considered an offence under law.

The bench reasoned that cruelty, which can be either mental or physical, is “relative” and cannot be used in a “straitjacket” manner.

“Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbours also cannot be termed as harassment,” Justice Abhay S Waghwase stated in his order.

Based on the testimony by witnesses and woman’s in-laws, the high court concluded that the allegations could not be considered as an immediate cause of suicide.

“They (mother, uncle and aunt of deceased) have admitted that, there was no communication from the deceased either written or oral, she has not conveyed that there were any instances of cruelty in proximity to suicide. There is no evidence to show that at that relevant point or any proximity to the suicide, there was any demand, cruelty or mal-treatment so as to connect them with the suicidal death. What triggered the suicide has remained a mystery,” the court said.

Criticising the trial court’s “out of place” observations while convicting the accused 20 years ago, the high court judge said there was no evidence to prove that the conduct of accused towards the deceased was “incessant or consistent”.