Merely Because Wife Didn't File Complaint Under S.498A IPC For Many Years Doesn't Mean There Was No Cruelty By Husband : Supreme Court

The fact that a wife did not make any complaint regarding cruelty for many years would not make a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code unsustainable, held the Supreme Court while rejecting the plea of a husband for discharge.

In this case, the wife killed herself after 12 years of marriage, following which her father filed a complaint under Section 498A and 306 IPC against the husband. It was alleged that a year before her suicide, the husband had sold off her gold ornaments, given as streedhan and that she was physically and mentally tortured when she demanded them back.

The Supreme Court noted that there were sufficient averments in the complaint to the effect that the wife had complained of cruelty by her husband on many occasions.

"The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment," observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The Court noted that the complaint had specific instances regarding cruelty.

Explaining the scope of the offence of 'cruelty', the judgment, after citing various precedents, stated :

"Section 498A, IPC provides for punishment to the husband or to relatives of the husband of a woman subjecting the woman to cruelty. 'Cruelty' under this

provision has been explained to mean –

a. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

b. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

Referring to the law laid down in precedents, the judgment observed :

"From the above understanding of the provision, it is evident that, 'cruelty' simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands."

The Court however held that the offence of abetment of suicide (S.306 IPC) was not attracted and discharged the husband under this provision.

Case : Jaydeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and others v. State of Gujarat

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 979

Click here to read the judgment

Related - S.498A IPC Often Used Against Husband & His Family To Meet Wife's Unreasonable Demands, Growing Tendency Of Misuse: Supreme Court