Husband can’t be convicted of cruelty merely because wife was unhappy: HC
The single judge bench of justice MM Sathaye noted that apart from the case of the woman being unhappy and crying during interactions with her parents , there is no other specific incidence of physical or mental cruelty stated by any of the witnesses
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that a husband cannot be convicted of charges of cruelty merely based on statements from the wife’s parents that she was “unhappy and often used to weep a lot”. The court was hearing a case where a woman died by suicide in November 1997, and her parents filed a complaint against her husband and mother-in-law for allegedly harassing her and driving her to suicide.
The single judge bench of justice MM Sathaye noted that apart from the case of the woman being unhappy and crying during interactions with her parents , there is no other specific incidence of physical or mental cruelty stated by any of the witnesses. “Mere statements that the deceased daughter used to be unhappy and used to weep is not sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there was harassment or conduct of such nature and degree that it will drive a woman to commit suicide”, the bench said.
According to the woman’s parents, after the couple’s marriage in May 1997, her husband and mother-in-law treated her cruelly, driving her to jump into a river near Bopodi, Pune. Following her death, her parents filed a case against the husband and his mother, but both defendants pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.
During the cross-examination, representatives of the husband said that the woman was merely unhappy with the marriage since it had been organised against her wishes. They also added that she had fallen into the river by mistake and her death was not a case of suicide.
However, the Pune trial court in November 1998 convicted the husband and sentenced him to three years of jail. He then challenged the order at the Bombay High Court.
The woman’s father told the court that she had studied till Class 9 and wanted to study further. He added that while she wanted her husband to own his own house, they had lived in a locality where they did not even have a proper washroom.
The husband’s representatives argued that the woman’s parents had made “bold and ambiguous statements and allegations about cruelty” but had said nothing about any “ill-treatment”. He added that there was no evidence for why the woman had been unhappy, and neither was there any evidence of cruelty.
The court found nothing that indicated that the husband had instigated his wife to die by suicide or had engaged in any conspiracy to push her mentally or physically to suicide. The court said that the husband deserves the benefit of doubt, and quashed the order passed by the Pune trial court.
