Wife Going Shopping With Others, Compelling Husband To Do Household Chores Not 'Abetment Of Suicide': Madhya Pradesh High Court

While setting aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Umaria framing charge under Section 306 IPC against the wife for allegedly abetting her husband's suicide, a bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed thus:

“In cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide. Acts involve multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and reactions or in the cases of abetment, Court must look for cogent and convincing proof of acts of incitement of commission of suicide”

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Nisha Saket (applicant), against whom, a charge had been framed for abetting her husband's suicide.

The primary allegations against the applicant-wife revolved around her alleged rude behaviour towards her in-laws and her deceased husband. It was alleged that she did not maintain a good relationship with her in-laws and failed to adequately care for her husband. There were instances where she did not prepare meals for her husband on time, leading to him sometimes going on duty without eating.

Additionally, she was accused of leaving her child with neighbours and going to the market for shopping, despite objections from her husband, leading to quarrels between them.

Furthermore, it was alleged that even when she was present at home, her husband had to perform household chores like mopping, cleaning, and washing clothes. She was also accused of frequently visiting her parental home without informing her husband and watching TV shows like Crime Patrol despite his objections, leading to further disputes between them.

Many other allegations were also levelled against her claiming that on account of abetment by her, her husband (deceased) committed suicide.

Challenging the registration of FIR as well as framing of charge under Section 306 of IPC, the applicant moved the HC wherein her counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, still no offence under Section 306 would be made out.

Taking into account the allegations levelled against the applicant-wife, the Court noted that such allegations are trivial, and generally take place in every house.

The Court observed that even counsel for the complainant could not point out that even if the entire allegations which have been made against the applicant are treated as true, then how the offence under Section 306 of IPC would be made out.

Further, the Court noted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it cannot be presumed that there was any instigation on the part of the applicant.

In this regard, the Court referred to Supreme Court's rulings in the cases of Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another 2012, Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of A.P 2010, M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police 2011 to note that no case was made out warranting prosecution of the applicant.

Accordingly, the order of the Sessions Court was set aside.

Case title - Nisha Saket vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order