Not allowing daughter-in-law to watch TV, taunting over meals can be harassment but not cruelty: Bombay HC

Other allegations included the deceased had not been allowed to mix with neighbours, was made to fetch water after she had a bath late in the night, made her sleep on carpet and do domestic work in spite of her suffering from typhoid.

The deceased woman’s aunt had claimed that as per her niece, accused persons asked her to fetch water after she had had a bath at 1.30 am. The judge noted that the water supply at the village where the deceased and her in-laws lived, was made available late at night when the entire village was required to fetch water and there was “nothing unusual to expect deceased” to do the same.

The HC observed that the sessions judge tried to impose his own reflection of how a newly married bride should be treated and the same was “unwarranted” considering the water supply situation in the village.

Ascertaining what actually constituted cruelty under section 498A of IPC, Justice Waghawase referred to past verdicts of HCs and Supreme Court and opined that “above reproduced allegations would not constitute offence of 498A IPC”.

The HC added, “Humiliation in what form is not clarified. Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not clear…”

The judge referred to a SC judgement of 2008 which had held that under section 498A, harassment amounts to cruelty only when it is committed to coerce the woman to meet an unlawful demand for property.

The HC noted, “The above instances could be termed as ‘harassment’. But, every harassment does not amount to ‘cruelty’… Admittedly, cruelty can be either mental or physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of definition, because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person.”

As per the prosecution which lodged the case under section 498A and 306 (abetment to suicide), the deceased and the appellant man married in December, 2002, after which she came to reside with him and in-laws.

Merely few months into marriage, she communicated to her relatives about the ill treatment she received during Holi festival in March, 2003, due to which she allegedly died by suicide in May, 2003.

The High Court said there was a “gap of two months” since the deceased and the complainant met each other and there was no communication between them about instances of cruelty till she died by suicide.

“….There is no evidence to show that at that relevant point or any proximity to the suicide, there was any demand, cruelty or mal-treatment so as to connect them with the suicidal death. What triggered the suicide has remained a mystery,” the HC noted.

The HC found that the trial court’s observation that suicide of women due to ill-treatment were “out of place” and findings were “erroneous” with “no cogent and convincing evidence” to prove accused subjected her to cruelty.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court last month acquitted a man and his family found guilty by sessions court in 2004 for cruelty against his deceased wife, abetting suicide and observed that every harassment does not amount to cruelty.