Bombay HC acquits man accused for ‘taunting wife’, says it’s not ‘cruelty’

The Bombay High Court on Saturday observed that allegations of taunting a wife, not allowing her to visit temple alone or making her sleep on a carpet cannot be considered as ‘cruelty under IPC Section 498A, legal news portal LiveLaw reported on Saturday.
According to the report, the high court bench acquitted a man and his family convicted under IPC sections 498A as well as 306 (abetment to suicide). Their actions allegedly led to a woman’s suicide in 2002, added the report.
The Bombay High Court bench was hearing the case on appeal by the accused who was convicted by a trial court in April 2004.
As per the high court’s October 17 order, allegations against the accused include not allowing the deceased woman to interact with neighbours or visit a temple alone, taunting her for the food she cooked, not allowing her to watch TV, making her sleep on a carpet.
The bench also noted that the victim was not allowed to throw garbage alone and was also asked to fetch water at midnight.
The high court bench observed that such allegations of ‘cruelty’ cannot be considered as ‘severe under the concerned section citing it concerned the domestic affairs of a household. The bench also said it cannot be considered an offence under law.
According to the LiveLaw report, the bench reasoned that cruelty, which can be either mental or physical, is ‘relative’ and cannot be used in a ‘straitjacket’ manner.
“Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment,” LiveLaw quoted Justice Abhay S Waghwase’s observations in his order.
Justice Abhay S Waghwase also noted from witness testimony that the village where the woman and her in-laws lived received a water supply at midnight, and all households fetched water at 1:30 AM in the night.
Basing the testimony by the woman’s in-laws, the high court noted that the allegations could not be considered as an immediate cause of suicide as the deceased had visited her in-laws house almost two months before ending her life.
“They (mother, uncle and aunt of deceased) have admitted that, there was no communication from the deceased either written or oral, she has not conveyed that there were any instances of cruelty in proximity to 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 court said in its order.
Justice Abhay S Waghwase also criticised the trial court for its ‘out of place’ observations while convicting the accused 20 years ago. He added that there was ‘no evidence’ to prove that the conduct of accused towards the deceased was ‘incessant or consistent’.