Decision Date: May 7, 2026
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
The Section 498A IPC cruelty ruling by the Supreme Court clarifies that brief non-communication between spouses, without cogent evidence or proof of willful cruelty, cannot attract criminal liability. The Court acquitted Jayesh Kanna, set aside the judgments of the Madras High Court and the Trial Court, and directed the return of his passport after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that Sangeetha, the appellant’s wife, died by suicide on January 31, 2015, while staying at her parental home.
According to the prosecution, the bride’s family gave cash, gold jewellery, and silver articles as dowry at the time of marriage. It also alleged that the appellant and his family harassed her and demanded additional dowry.
The prosecution further claimed that the appellant objected to the deceased visiting her parents without informing her in-laws. It also alleged that he stopped speaking to her over the phone, causing mental agony that led to her suicide.
Based on these allegations, the police registered a case under Sections 498A and 304B IPC against the appellant and his family members.
The Trial Court acquitted all co-accused of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. It also acquitted the appellant of the dowry death charge. However, the court convicted him under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000.
The Madras High Court later upheld the conviction and dismissed his plea seeking the return of his passport.
Submissions Before the Court
Senior Advocate R. Basant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 498A IPC.
He submitted that the marriage took place on November 2, 2014, and that the appellant left for Muscat, Oman, on November 29, 2014, for his engineering job.
According to the defence, the deceased stayed briefly with her in-laws before moving to her parental home on January 18, 2015. She died by suicide on January 31, 2015.
The appellant argued that the conviction rested solely on the allegation that he did not speak to his wife over the phone during those thirteen days.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that the appellant’s refusal to communicate caused severe mental cruelty and justified conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Court Examines Scope of Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC
The Bench examined the scope of Section 498A IPC and reiterated that cruelty includes willful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Bench observed that courts must assess mental cruelty based on the facts of each case. It also noted that ordinary marital disagreements cannot amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
The Court pointed out that the Trial Court had already rejected the allegations relating to dowry demand and dowry death.
As a result, the only surviving allegation concerned the appellant’s displeasure over the deceased returning to her parental home and his alleged failure to communicate with her.
Lack of Evidence Weakens Prosecution Case
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove even the allegation of non-communication through reliable evidence.
The Court noted that the statements of the deceased’s parents and sister remained unsupported by objective evidence such as call detail records.
The Bench observed:
“The prosecution was duty bound to prove such allegation of lack of communication between the Appellant and the deceased with the call details of the deceased, accused and the parents of the deceased.”
The Court also noted that the appellant claimed he had tried to contact the deceased but could not reach her because her mobile phone was not functioning properly. He stated that he instead contacted her father.
Further, the Bench rejected the reliance on WhatsApp chats. It held that the absence of WhatsApp messages does not prove that no communication took place, as the parties could have spoken through ordinary phone calls.
Mere Non-Communication for Thirteen Days Not Cruelty
The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove conduct amounting to Section 498A IPC cruelty.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, in absence of any material, 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 Court further remarked that temporary differences and periods of silence often occur in marital relationships. Such circumstances alone cannot constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Conviction Set Aside; Passport to Be Returned
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the Madras High Court, allowed the appeals, and discharged the appellant’s bail bonds.
The Court also directed the Trial Court to return the appellant’s passport if it remained in judicial custody, noting that the passport had been withheld solely because of the conviction. All pending applications were disposed of.
