‘Taunting wife, not allowing her to watch TV cannot be cruelty’, says Bombay high court

The court was hearing an appeal by a man and his family accused of “cruelty” towards a woman, who committed suicide 20 years ago.

The Bombay High Court has said that allegations of taunting a wife, not allowing her to visit temple alone or making her sleep on a carpet cannot be considered as “cruelty” under IPC Section 498A, legal news portal LiveLaw reported.

A single judge bench order said cruelty can be either mental or physical, is “relative” and cannot be used in a “straitjacket” manner.(HT File)

According to the report, the court acquitted a man and his family convicted under IPC sections 498A as well as 306 (abetment to suicide). Their actions allegedly led to a woman's suicide in 2002. The bench was hearing the case on appeal by the accused, convicted by a trial court in April 2004.

According to the high court's October 17 order, allegations against the accused included taunting the deceased woman for the food she cooked, not allowing her to interact with neighbours or visit a temple alone, not allowing her to watch TV, making her sleep on a carpet.

The order also noted that the deceased woman was not allowed to throw garbage alone and was also asked to fetch water at midnight.

The high court observed that such allegations of “cruelty” cannot be considered as “severe” under the concerned section, as it concerned the domestic affairs of a household.

Thus, the court said it cannot be considered an offence under law. According to the Live Law report, the bench also 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 neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment,” wrote Justice Abhay S Waghwase in his order.

The judge also noted from witness testimony that the village where the woman and her in-laws lived, received water supply in the midnight and all households fetched water at 1:30 AM in the night.

Based on the testimony by the woman's in-laws, the high court noted that the allegations could not be considered as an immediate cause of suicide as the deceased had visited her in-laws house almost two months before ending her life.

“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 in its order.

The judge also criticised the trial court for its “out of place” observations while convicting the accused 20 years ago. He also observed that there was “no evidence” to prove that the conduct of accused towards the deceased was “incessant or consistent”.