Madras High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the wife, an octogenarian, challenged her husband’s acquittal by the Appellate Court, seeking restoration of the Trial Court’s conviction and six-month sentence. It was alleged that the conviction was based on a misreading of evidence and failure to consider sustained mental and emotional cruelty, A Single Judge Bench of L. Victoria Gowri, J., while allowing the criminal appeal, held that the Appellate Court misapplied the law by assuming that the absence of a dowry demand forecloses Section 498-A IPC. The Court emphasised that Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC covers wilful conduct causing grave mental injury, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the husband based on sustained cruelty such as isolation, denial of food, religious obstruction, and financial coercion, corroborated by the police compromise.
Background:
The wife lived with her husband, son, and daughter-in-law as a joint family in Paramakudi. She alleged that the husband developed an illicit relationship within the family and, when she protested, he assaulted and harassed her, denied food and maintenance, obstructed religious practices, and isolated her by building a separate kitchen. On 20-02-2007, he allegedly tried to stab her with a knife, and the daughter-in-law threatened to poison her food. Both the son and daughter-in-law were said to have supported the husband’s actions.
The wife filed a complaint on 26-02-2007, and an FIR was registered on 20-06-2007 under Sections 498-A and 506(i) IPC. After investigation, the husband was charged under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC, and the son and daughter-in-law under Sections 498-A, 506(ii) read with 109 IPC. During the trial, six witnesses were examined, including the wife, her brother, two family friends, a neighbour, and the investigating officer. However, he denied all allegations and did not present any defence witnesses.
The wife testified about continuous cruelty, denial of food, religious obstruction, financial coercion, and threats. Other witnesses supported her claims based on what she told them and surrounding events like property disputes and partial return of her jewellery. The Investigating Officer confirmed the complaint and compromise terms, which included monthly payment, household control, and phone access.
The Trial Court found the knife and poison threats unproven but held the husband guilty of mental cruelty under Section 498-A IPC due to isolation, denial of food, obstruction of worship, and coercion for money. The son and daughter-in-law were acquitted. The Appellate Court reversed the conviction, citing lack of independent witnesses, hearsay evidence, absence of material object seizure, and no dowry demand.
The wife argued that the reversal was based on misreading evidence and misunderstanding Section 498-A IPC, which does not require dowry demand to prove cruelty. The husband countered that the allegations were uncorroborated, driven by property disputes, and that the Trial Court had already rejected the most serious charges. Given the husband’s age and health, they argued that restoring the conviction would serve no purpose.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the Appellate Court erred in treating the absence of independent eyewitnesses as fatal and wrongly discarded the testimonies of some witnesses as hearsay, thereby effectively demanding corroboration as a rule of law, which was a misdirection. The Court emphasised that domestic cruelty often lacks direct witnesses, and the consistent accounts of these witnesses supported the wife’s credible core, aligning with the Supreme Court’s guidance that the sole testimony of the victim may suffice.
The Court further held that the Appellate Court misapplied the law by assuming that the absence of dowry demand forecloses Section 498-A IPC. The Court highlighted that Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC covers wilful conduct causing grave mental injury, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the husband based on sustained cruelty such as isolation, denial of food, religious obstruction, and financial coercion, corroborated by the police compromise.
The Court further noted that while the Appellate Court correctly stated that “mere illicit relationship” was insufficient, a legally sound view in abstraction it was misapplied to the facts. The Trial Court did not convict the husband for the affair alone but evaluated the totality of conduct that inflicted mental cruelty. The Court observed that the knife incident and poison threat lacked corroboration, and the Trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt under Section 506(ii) IPC. Consequently, the acquittals of the son and daughter-in-law were justified, as the wife did not attribute specific acts of abetment to them, and the alleged threats were uncorroborated.
The Court highlighted that the compromise recorded by the Investigating Officer, where the husband agreed to hand over household control, pay Rs 2,000 per month, allow phone access, and ensure no further trouble, objectively affirmed the wife’s deprivation and harassment. The Court observed that the Appellate Court failed to give due weight to this admission.
Further, the Court noted that the defence did not examine any witnesses or challenge the wife’s allegations during cross-examination, which further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The Trial Court’s finding of guilt under Section 498-A IPC was sound and warranted restoration. The Court affirmed that the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine imposed by the Trial Court was measured and just, considering the husband’s age and health but also the gravity and duration of the cruelty.
The Court observed that the victim, now an octogenarian, belonged to a generation of Indian women who endured persistent mental and emotional cruelty with stoic silence, believing endurance was virtue and tolerance a duty. The Court held that such misplaced endurance, often glorified in societal narratives, emboldened men to exercise control and neglect under the garb of patriarchal privilege, and emphasised that it is time men unlearn the inherited dogma that marriage entitles them to unquestioned authority, recognising instead that a wife’s dignity and well-being are core obligations of the marital bond.
The Court viewed the conviction not through the lens of age but through the prism of accountability, affirming that cruelty, when persistent and deliberate, corrodes the sanctity of marriage. The Court held that protecting octogenarian women from oppressive domestic environments is a reaffirmation of the constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment serves as a quiet but firm reminder that respect within marriage is ageless and that safeguarding the dignity of elderly women reflects a truly civilised society. Therefore, the Court allowed the criminal appeal with no costs.
Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Court’s acquittal of the husband and restored the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 498-A IPC, affirming the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. The husband was directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the sentence, with appropriate credit for any fine already paid and benefit of set-off under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 if applicable.
Additionally, the Court directed the husband and son to continue paying Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance to the wife, on or before the 5th of each month through the jurisdictional Magistrate, with any arrears to be cleared within three months.
[X v. Y, CRL A (MD) No. 17 of 2018, decided on 31-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: D. Saravanan
For the Respondents: M. Sakthikumar, Government Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
