Delay In Filing Complaint No Ground To Discard Matrimonial Cruelty Case; S.498A IPC Is Continuing Offence: Kerala High Court
K. Salma Jennath
4 March 2026 12:11 PM IST
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment wherein it refused to set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was delay in filing complaint by wife.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha remarked: “Matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence, as the suffering of the victim does not end with a single isolated incident but continues so long as oppressive conduct persists. Harassment and cruelty within the marriage cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in the context of continuous conduct.”
The Court added that women endure cruelty for long periods of time before finally preferring a complaint. She observed that delay in reporting cannot erode credibility of complaint if the prosecution's case is otherwise believable.
“In cases of matrimonial cruelty, several compelling reasons account for the delay in reporting. A woman may hope for reconciliation and the preservation of the marriage. Her family may pressurise her to tolerate abuse for the sake of matrimonial harmony. The social stigma attached to approaching the police against one's husband may also be a reason for the delay. Yet another reason may be her economic dependence and her concern for her children. Another reason may be her emotional trauma from further victimisation…victims often endure cruelty silently for long periods before approaching legal authorities. Therefore, the delay in reporting the matrimonial cruelty does not by itself necessarily erode the credibility of the complaint, provided the prosecution version is otherwise found to be believable,” the Court remarked.
The Court was considering a revision petition filed by a husband against the concurrent findings of guilt rendered by the trial court and the appellate court. The petitioner and his mother were accused of the offences under Sections 498A and 34 IPC. Both were convicted for the offences alleged by the trial court.
In appeal, the mother of the petitioner was acquitted and the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC. His sentence was modified to simple imprisonment for 1 year and fine. Subsequently, he challenged the sentence and conviction before the High Court.
The main contentions raised were that there was delay in lodging the complaint and that there were inconsistencies in the versions of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution argued that the findings of the previous courts were correct and warrant no interference.
The Court first considered the revisional powers of the court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC and opined that the powers cannot be equated with that of an appeal. Courts should not interfere unless the finding of the court, whose decision is challenged is shown to be perverse or grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable.
The Bench noted that as per the deposition of the wife, she has stated that she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the husband, who had demanded dowry, and she had to take refuge in her neighbour's house. The neighbour had also deposed corroborating her version and so did another prosecution witness who her to the neighbour's house.
Next, it examined the wound certificate issued by the doctor that had examined the wife, who was pregnant at the time. According to the wife, she preferred the complaint after her discharge from the hospital.
Considering the evidence on record, the Court felt that the prosecution version was believable. It was also remarked that testimony of a victim of matrimonial cruelty cannot be considered with a hyper-technical approach:
“The testimony of a victim of matrimonial cruelty must be appreciated with sensitivity, and realism and a hyper-technical approach in such matters would defeat the very object of Section 498A IPC…Assaulting the wife in connection with dowry demands is not a mere domestic dispute but a serious offence rooted in greed, coercion and gender based violence. When a woman is physically harmed because she or her family cannot meet the unlawful dowry demands, it reflects the deliberate and oppressive misuse of power within the matrimonial home.”
The Court thus upheld the conviction but modified the sentence awarded to six months.
Case No: Crl.R.P. No.573 of 2018
Case Title: Praveen Kumar @ Kannan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Counsel for the petitioner: Vishnu Premkumar – Amicus Curiae
Counsel for the respondent: Maya M.N. – Public Prosecutor