Bombay High Court says, “Taunting and not allowing wife to watch TV cannot be cruelty”

Bombay HC gave this verdict on an appeal by a man and his family accused of “cruelty” to a woman who committed suicide 20 years ago.

Bombay High Court recently heard an appeal by a man and his family who were accused of “cruelty” over a woman who died by suicide 20 years ago. As per a legal news portal, Live Law, The Bombay High Court said that allegations of taunting a wife, not allowing her to visit the temple alone, or making her sleep on a carpet cannot be considered as “cruelty” under IPC Section 498A.

Bombay High Court acquits a man and his family accused of cruelty to a woman.

As per a report, the court acquitted a man and his family accused of cruelty to a woman, convicted under IPC sections 498A as well as 306 (abetment to suicide). In 2002, their actions allegedly led to a woman’s suicide. 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 order on October 17, allegations against the accused included taunting the deceased woman for the food she cooked, not allowing her to interact with neighbors, not allowing her to visit a temple alone, not allowing her to watch TV and making her sleep on a carpet. The order also noted that the deceased woman wasn’t allowed to throw garbage alone and was asked to fetch water at midnight.

High Court did not find the allegations as “severe.”

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, saying it cannot be considered an offense under the law. As per the Live Law report, the bench also reasoned that cruelty, which can be mental or physical, is “relative” and cannot be used in a “straitjacket” manner. Justice Abhay S Waghwase, in his order, wrote, “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 neighbor also cannot be termed as harassment.”

In its order, the court said, “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.”