The Supreme Court has ruled that a husband’s decision not to communicate with his wife for a brief period cannot, by itself, be treated as cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Setting aside the conviction of a man accused after his wife died by suicide, the court observed that periods of silence and disagreements are not uncommon in married life and do not automatically amount to criminal conduct.
A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar found that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the husband’s alleged non-communication and the woman’s death. The judges emphasized that, without convincing evidence, a 13-day lapse in communication could not be stretched into an act of cruelty warranting criminal punishment.
The case stemmed from allegations that the husband, who was working in Oman, stopped speaking to his wife after disagreements arose over her decision to stay with her parents despite objections from his family. According to the prosecution, the lack of contact caused the woman severe emotional distress and ultimately led her to take her own life.
Following her death, a criminal case was registered in 2015 against the husband and several members of his family under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. During trial proceedings, the allegations of dowry demand and related harassment could not be substantiated, leading to the acquittal of all accused on those counts.
However, the trial court convicted the husband under Section 498A, concluding that his conduct amounted to cruelty. That finding was later affirmed by the Madras High Court, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Before the apex court, the husband argued that the conviction rested solely on the claim that he had not spoken to his wife for 13 days. The opposing side maintained that such conduct inflicted serious mental suffering and should be viewed as cruelty.
Examining the legal principles surrounding mental cruelty, the Supreme Court noted that there is no universal formula for determining when conduct crosses the threshold into criminal wrongdoing. What may appear insignificant in one relationship could be deeply distressing in another, the court observed, making each case dependent on its specific facts.
Yet, after reviewing the evidence, the bench found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. The allegation of non-communication relied largely on statements made by the deceased woman’s parents. Investigators had also pointed to WhatsApp records showing an absence of messages from the husband.
The court found that argument unpersuasive. It noted that the absence of WhatsApp exchanges does not conclusively prove a lack of communication, since conversations could have taken place through regular phone calls or other means.
Concluding that the evidence fell short of proving cruelty beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The bench also directed that the husband’s passport be returned.
The ruling came in the case of Jayesh Kanna v. The Assistant Commissioner, Law and Order (West) & Others, decided through Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382–2383 of 2026.
