The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of subjecting his wife to cruelty and abetting her suicide. Justice Sunder Mohan held that an extramarital relationship, by itself, does not establish cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution must prove conduct meeting the legal requirements of the offence.
Background
In T. Deivakumar v. State, the appellant, the deceased woman’s brother, challenged the trial court’s decision acquitting the second respondent of charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
The prosecution alleged that the husband had demanded five sovereigns of gold and ₹75,000 in cash, maintained an extramarital relationship and subjected his wife to cruelty. The woman allegedly died by suicide along with their one-and-a-half-year-old child in November 2010.
The trial court had found that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged dowry demand or the required degree of cruelty. The deceased woman’s brother subsequently appealed against the acquittal.
Justice Sunder Mohan found that the trial court’s reasoning regarding the absence of testimony from the woman allegedly involved with the husband was flawed. However, the High Court independently assessed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had not established the necessary elements of the offences.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, the Court observed:
“the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to ‘cruelty’”
The Court further clarified that the alleged extramarital relationship, though established on the facts before it, was not shown to be of such a nature as to drive the wife to suicide. It held that evidence of additional conduct amounting to cruelty was necessary.
On the dowry allegation, the Court found that the claim was vague and had not appeared in the earliest complaint. It observed:
“this version cannot be believed, since the evidence discloses that the allegation with regard to the dowry demand is improved by the prosecution witnesses as the allegation besides being vague, was not made in the earliest version.”
After independently examining the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case.
It dismissed the criminal appeal, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.
