On November 4, 2025, the Bombay High Court ruled that a husband and his parents cannot be convicted of constitute cruelty under Section 498A solely based on the testimony of the wife’s parents. They had claimed that their late daughter, Rekha, was unhappy in her marriage and frequently cried when visiting them due to alleged harassment by her in-laws.
Earlier, on November 17, 1998, Mr. Manohar, the husband, was convicted by a district court in Pune, Maharashtra, under Section 306 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000 for the Section 306 charge. However, the court did not impose a separate sentence for the Section 498A charge. This conviction led Mr. Manohar to file an appeal, which has now been successful.
Background Of This Case- The Marriage
On May 25, 1997, Manohar and Rekha tied the knot. It was alleged that after their marriage, Manohar and his mother subjected Rekha to cruelty, pressuring her to bring money from her parents for household expenses and demanding a sewing machine. This mistreatment allegedly drove her to commit suicide by jumping into river and drowning sometime between November 13 and 17 of 1997.
On November 13, 1997, she left her matrimonial house, and a missing person’s report was filed the same day. Then on November 17, 1997, her lifeless body was discovered floating in the river, which her father, Mr. Kisan, was informed about. Following this, Kisan (Rekha’s father) filed a complaint with the Police.
Both Manohar and his mother pleaded not guilty and requested a trial. Kisan’s (Rekha’s father) main argument was that Rekha was unhappy with her husband.
During his testimony in court, Kisan mentioned that just two months after the wedding, Rekha would say that her husband (Manohar) and mother-in-law were asking her for money to pay off debts and cover household expenses.
Kisan claimed that he would give her some money whenever he could, but would express his inability to help when he couldn’t. Additionally, Kisan alleged that Manohar (the husband) had once asked for a sewing machine, which he provided.
Kisan alleged that before Diwali of 1997, there was a marriage of a relative which Rekha and Manohar had attended, during which Manohar asked for Rs 1,000, which Kisan paid. He said he gave this money to ensure that his daughter (Rekha) wouldn’t face any harassment.
Manohar said that on Diwali, October 28, 1997, he had gone to Rekha’s matrimonial home, but her mother-in-law refused to let her go. She said that if Rekha wanted to visit her parents, she would have to return on her own and no one from her matrimonial house will come to fetch her.
Kisan said Rekha was crying at that time. He also testified in court that since Manohar was not at home, he waited for him. When Manohar finally arrived, he said that he had come to take Rekha home for Diwali. Manohar (the husband) then told Kisan that he may take Rekha to parent’s house but nobody from the matrimonial home will come to bring her back and he should return her after Diwali.
It was noted that during Diwali, Rekha was unhappy and often cried. After Diwali, he took Rekha back to her matrimonial home.
According to Kisan, Rekha had studied up to 9th standard and was beautiful. She wanted to study further and hoped that her husband would be good looking. In the court, Kisan acknowledged that Rekha expected her husband to have his own house.
However, her matrimonial home was located in a labourers’ area, consisting of a room measuring 8′ x 10′ feet. Kisan also said that people in that locality might go to the river bank for answering the call of nature.
Kisan (Rekha’s father) also claimed that Manohar (the husband) didn’t have a permanent job. He ackowledged that during his visit to the police station on November 13, 1997, while being questioned by the police, he failed to mention any ill-treatment of his daughter or the demands made by Manohar and his mother. Kisan said that at that time he couldn’t file such a complaint because they were searching for Rekha.
Witness number 2, a neighbor of Kisan (Rekha’s father), said that on November 17, 1997, he found out that a girl’s dead body had been discovered in the river, which was likely Rekha’s. He then went to Bopodi and confirmed that it was indeed Rekha’s body . Thereafter, he went to the police station. The body was taken out of the river with the help of the fire brigade and was sent to Sassoon hospital. On his way to the hospital in a rickshaw, , he encountered Kisan (father of Rekha) and told him about Rekha’s death. However, the witness no.2 was not cross-examined.
Witness number-3 is Rekha’s mother, who testified during her examination-in-chief that whenever Rekha visited her parent’s house, she would remain silent and cry. Rekha never explained the reasons for her tears. She mentioned that during Diwali after Rekha’s marriage, when Kisan went to fetch Rekha, they initially denied permission but eventually allowed her to go. Rekha had mentioned that Manohar and his mother used to demand money. Rekha’s mother has also noted that after Diwali in 1997, at the time of marriage of a relative, Rs 1,000 was paid to Manohar.
During cross-examination, Rekha’s mother admitted that on November 13, 1997, someone from Manohar’s neighborhood complained to her. She also acknowledged that when police inquired after the missing person’s report was filed, she did not tell police anything about Manohar or his mother.
Rekha’s mother also mentioned that once she came to know about Rekha’s death, doubts started creeping in. During the cross-examination, she stayed silent for quite a while after she was asked whether they filed the complaint to clear these doubts. After a long pause, Rekha’s mother denied that they sought advice from a women’s organization before lodging the complaint.
Bombay High Court Analysis Of Facts
In its judgment dated November 4, 2025 (2025:BHC-AS:47058), the Bombay High Court stated that the evidence presented clearly shows that, aside from the payment of Rs 1,000 around Diwali 1997 during a relative’s marriage, there is no other evidence of any money being paid to Manohar (the husband).
The Court further observed that, apart from Rekha (the wife) being unhappy and crying during interactions, there were no specific incidents of physical or mental cruelty mentioned by any witnesses, including Rekha’s parents.
Additionally, the Court noted that Manohar’s house was located in an area without individual latrines, where people used public toilets provided by the local authorities, and some even visited the riverbank for such needs.
The Bombay High Court remarked: “In such circumstances, the necessary ingredient of cruelty in the form of conduct of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or a person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is not clearly spelt out, much less proved.”
The Court emphasized that statements regarding Rekha’s unhappiness and crying were insufficient to conclusively establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was subjected to harassment or conduct severe enough to drive her to suicide.
“In my view, the evidence on record as indicated above is not sufficient to conclude cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”
The Court further explained that Section 107 of the IPC defines abetment as an act where a person instigates or conspires with others to commit an act, or intentionally aids in the act.
In this case, the Court found no evidence to suggest that Manohar had instigated Rekha to commit suicide, conspired to push her mentally or physically, or intentionally aided her in taking her life.
The Court pointed out that Manohar had filed a missing person report on November 13, 1997, clearly noting that Rekha had left her ornaments behind, which was inconsistent with the claim of suicide due to harassment.
The Bombay High Court also noted, “It is also a fact that during inquiry by the police on the missing report, none of the parents had stated anything about alleged harassment or cruelty by the appellant.”
The Court concluded that the Trial Court had erred in concluding that there were persistent demands for money by Manohar.
“The Trial Court was also in error to hold that deceased Rekha had realized that her father cannot fulfill such demands every time and therefore, she decided to put an end to her life. The Trial Court has also committed serious error in holding that this is a case which is nothing less than mental torture amounting to subjecting deceased to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of IPC.”
As previously stated, there was insufficient evidence to prove persistent demands for money, or to suggest that Rekha had any realization about her father’s inability to fulfill those demands. There was also no evidence of mental torture, as asserted by the Trial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites Two Supreme Court Judgements
The Bombay High Court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Mohan, where it dealt with a case of abetment to suicide. The Supreme Court held that abetment involves a mental process of either instigating or intentionally aiding a person in committing an act, and it requires a clear mens rea (intent). The Court further stated that abetment necessitates a direct or active act by the accused that leads the deceased to suicide, with the act being intended to push the victim into taking their life because they see no other option.
The Bombay High Court stated, “In the present case, no instance of instigation can be attributed to the appellant (Manohar), and there is no direct connection between the suicide and the alleged demands for money and a sewing machine. Therefore, this judgment directly supports the appellant’s case.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh, another case of alleged abetment to suicide, where the accused, after a quarrel, was said to have told the deceased, “Go and die.” The deceased was found dead two days later. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the suicide was not directly linked to the quarrel or the accused’s abusive statement. The Court also noted that the accused was directly named in the suicide note.
The Bombay High Court pointed out, “In the present case, there is no suicide note, let alone one naming the appellant (Manohar). There was no quarrel, and no direct statements were made by the appellant. Therefore, this case is much stronger for the appellant in terms of the alleged abetment of suicide. This judgment also supports the appellant’s case.”
Bombay High Court Cites Other High Court Judgements
The Bombay High Court referenced its earlier judgment in Dnyandeo P. Yadav, where it had considered Section 498-A in conjunction with Section 306 of the IPC. In that case, two allegations were made, but the Court found both to be outside the scope of Section 498A.
The Court stated, “In the present case, apart from a single instance of a demand and payment of Rs 1,000 during a relative’s wedding, there are no other allegations of money being demanded. The claim that a sewing machine was provided by PW-1 (Rekha’s father) due to harassment is highly questionable, and it cannot, under any circumstance, be considered as falling under Section 498A. This case law further supports the appellant’s (Manohar’s) position. Similarly, in this case, the allegations are vague and general in nature.”
Case law cited: Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]
The Delhi High Court ruled that denying marital intimacy and alienating a child constitutes mental cruelty, and consequently granted a divorce to the husband.
Bombay High Court Judgement
The Bombay High Court stated that, given the facts and circumstances, there is considerable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case. As a result, the appellant (Manohar) is entitled to the benefit of this doubt. The Court concluded that the impugned judgment and order warrants interference.
Judgement:
- Criminal Appeal No.885 of 1998 is allowed.
- Judgment and order dated 17/11/1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the Appellant, is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.