Mere non-communication with wife for thirteen days cannot amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC, rules Supreme Court
In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has held that mere non-communication by a husband with his wife for thirteen days, without cogent supporting evidence and in the absence of proven allegations of dowry hara
By Vatsal Chandra
In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of mental cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has held that mere non-communication by a husband with his wife for thirteen days, without cogent supporting evidence and in the absence of proven allegations of dowry harassment, cannot constitute cruelty warranting criminal conviction.A Bench comprising Justice J.K.
Maheshwari and Justice Atul S.
Chandurkar set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the Madras High Court which had convicted him under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment.
The Court also directed that his passport, which had been withheld owing to the conviction, be returned.Background of the CaseThe appellant married Sangeetha on 02.11.2014.
At the time, he was employed as an engineer in Muscat, Oman.
According to the prosecution, cash, gold ornaments and silver articles were given by the bride's family at the time of marriage.
It was alleged that the appellant and his relatives subjected the deceased to harassment and demanded additional dowry.The prosecution further claimed that after the appellant left for Muscat on 29.11.2014, the deceased continued to stay with her in-laws for some time before shifting to her parental home on 18.01.2015.On 31.01.2015, while residing with her parents, she committed suicide.According to the prosecution, the appellant was upset because the deceased had gone to her parental home without obtaining the consent of his family members.
It was alleged that he thereafter refused to speak to her over the phone, causing severe mental agony and ultimately driving her to take the extreme step.An FIR was registered under Sections 498A and 304B IPC against the appellant and his family members.Trial Court FindingsDuring the trial, allegations of dowry demand and harassment were levelled against the husband and his relatives.
However, the Trial Court found that these allegations had not been established through reliable evidence.The father-in-law, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law were acquitted of all charges.
The Trial Court also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.It further found that the prosecution had not established any case of abetment of suicide.However, the Trial Court held that the appellant's conduct in refusing to speak to the deceased after she returned to her parental home amounted to mental cruelty and convicted him under Section 498A IPC.He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.10,000/-.High Court Affirms ConvictionThe Madras High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence.It also dismissed his criminal revision petition challenging the refusal to return his passport.Aggrieved by the common judgment, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.Submissions before the Supreme CourtSenior Advocate R.
Basant, appearing for the appellant, argued that the entire conviction rested solely upon the allegation that the appellant had not spoken to his wife over the phone for a few days.He pointed out that the couple had stayed together only till 29.11.2014, when the appellant left for Muscat.
The deceased later shifted to her parental home and committed suicide while residing there.It was argued that mere non-communication could not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.Opposing the appeals, the State argued that the husband's refusal to communicate caused severe mental agony to the deceased and therefore constituted cruelty.Supreme Court Examines Scope Of Cruelty Under Section 498A IPCThe Bench referred to the language of Section 498A IPC and noted that cruelty includes wilful conduct of such gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.Referring, The Court referred to its to its earlier decisions in Mohd.
Hoshan v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Manju Ram Kalita v.
State of Assam and reiterated that whether a particular act amounts to mental cruelty depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Quoting from Manju Ram Kalita, the Bench observed:“Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC.”The Court further reiterated:"Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty."According to the Bench, there cannot be a straightjacket formula for determining mental cruelty.The Court observed:"The question of mental cruelty must be determined in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case."The Supreme Court noted that both the Trial Court and the High Court had rejected the allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment.The charge under Section 304B IPC had failed, and even the allegation of abetment of suicide had not been proved.
Thus, the only surviving allegation against the appellant was that he had not spoken to the deceased between 18.01.2021 till 31.01.2015.Prosecution Failed To Produce Call Detail RecordsThe Court found that the allegation regarding lack of communication was based solely on oral testimony of the deceased's mother, father and sister.According to the Bench, if non-communication formed the foundation of the prosecution case, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to corroborate the allegation with call detail records.The Court observed:"It is the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence in the form of call details, supporting oral testimony.
The said duty has not been discharged."The appellant had, on the other hand, stated that he had attempted to contact the deceased but her phone was not functioning properly and therefore he had spoken to her father.The prosecution also relied upon WhatsApp chats to argue that no messages had been exchanged between the spouses.The Court observed:“Not sending messages over WhatsApp is also not sufficient since the conversation may have been made through normal phone call also.”The Bench held that absence of WhatsApp messages could not conclusively establish absence of communication.Marital Differences Cannot Automatically Amount To CrueltyThe Court noted that there was no evidence of harassment during the period the deceased lived with the appellant.It also observed that the deceased could not accompany her husband to Muscat because her passport formalities had not been completed and consequently her visa had not been issued.Importantly, the Court recognized that disagreements and temporary estrangement are normal incidents of married life.The Bench observed:“Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication.”It further noted that the case did not even involve any specific quarrel between the spouses.Mere Non-Communication For Thirteen Days Not CrueltyHolding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC, the Court ruled:"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."The Bench held that findings recorded by the courts below were unsupported by cogent evidence.The Court observed:“The prosecution has to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge as alleged against the accused.”The Court further said:"It is not the accused who has to dispel such burden, especially when the charge under Section 498A IPC is involved."Supreme Court’s ConclusionConcluding that the prosecution had failed to prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt, the Bench observed:“The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC.”The Court further held:"Findings of conviction on proof of cruelty and harassment are without any cogent evidence."Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant and discharged his bail bonds.
Since the appellant's passport had been retained solely because of his conviction, the Court directed that the passport, if lying with the Trial Court, be returned to him.Case DetailsCase Title: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2382 - 2383 OF 2026 Jayesh Kanna v.
The Assistant Commissioner, Law and Order (West) & Ors.Citation: 2026 INSC 615Bench: Justice J.K.
Maheshwari and Justice Atul S.
ChandurkarDate of Judgment: 07.05.2026(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)