THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News

2 min read

The Supreme Court has held that mere non-communication by a husband with his wife for 13 days, without any other evidence of harassment or cruelty, cannot by itself constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Setting aside the conviction of a husband accused in his wife's suicide case, the Court observed that differences and periods of non-communication are not uncommon in marital relationships.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the husband's appeal and quashed his conviction under Section 498A IPC, which had earlier been upheld by the Madras High Court.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased wife died by suicide after suffering mental agony because the husband, who was residing in Oman, had allegedly refused to speak to her for 13 days. It was claimed that he was upset with her for visiting her parental home against the wishes of his family.

The Court noted that the husband and his family had already been acquitted of charges under Sections 304B and 498A relating to dowry demand and harassment, with the husband alone being convicted on the ground that his conduct amounted to cruelty.

Examining the evidence, the Bench found that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged lack of communication had driven the deceased to take the extreme step. The Court observed:

“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. Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it and such differences may result in non-communication, but it is not even a case where there was some quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased, due to which, the Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court.”

The Court also rejected the prosecution's reliance on WhatsApp chats showing an absence of messages from the husband, observing:

“The prosecution has placed reliance upon WhatsApp chats showing that no messages were sent by the Appellant to the deceased in order to prove that there was no conversation, however, in our opinion not sending messages over WhatsApp is also not sufficient since the conversation may have been made through normal phone call also.”

Holding that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish mental cruelty, the Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the Madras High Court and directed the return of the appellant's passport.

Case Citation: Jayesh Kanna v. The Assistant Commissioner, Law and Order (West) & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382-2383 of 2026.