The Supreme Court recently held that merely because a husband refused to talk to his wife for 13 days doesn't, in any stretch of imagination, amount to cruelty. It remarked that differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it, and such differences may result in non-communication.

Consequently, a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside a conviction and sentence of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or relatives). It allowed his passport to be returned to him.

It said: "Therefore, 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."

To briefly state, the prosecution alleged that the deceased wife was forced to die by suicide because the husband, residing in Oman, refused to speak to her for 13 days. It was alleged that the husband had issues with the wife visiting her parents against his family's wishes. This resulted in severe mental agony for the wife, residing at her parents' house, and compelled her to take an extreme step.

Based on the allegations, a case under Sections 498A and 304B was registered against the husband and his family in 2015. In the trial, all were acquitted of the charges as the allegations of demand for dowry and harassment were not proved. However, the Court convicted the husband of the offence of cruelty, reasoning that his wilful conduct was of such a nature that it drove the wife to suicide. After the Madras High Court upheld his conviction, he approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate R Basant(for the husband) stressed that the husband's conviction is untenable because he has been convicted merely because he refused to speak to the deceased. Per contra, Senior Advocate Balaji Subramaniam contended that it is the very conduct of the husband which caused serious mental cruelty to the wife.

The bench, perusing the various judgments on what constitutes mental cruelty, stated that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It said that there is no thumb rule to determine what constitutes mental cruelty, as an innocent quarrel for some may result in serious agony to another. Herein, it added that however persistent harassment within a proximity of time of lodging the complaint may be a relevant factor.

Analysing the facts of this case, the Court held that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation of lack of communication between the husband and the deceased wife resulted in her death.

It said that the prosecution relied merely on oral testimony of the deceased's parents that the husband didn't speak to her. It also relied on WhatsApp chats to bring home the argument that since no messages were sent by the Appellant to the deceased, there was no conversation between them.

Rejecting this, the Court said: "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."

Accordingly, it said aside the Trial Court and High Court's order.

Case Details: JAYESH KANNA v THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAW AND ORDER (WEST) ETC|CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2382 - 2383 OF 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Click Here To Read Order