No communication between spouses for a few days not abetment to suicide: SC

Mere absence of communication between spouses for a few days or ordinary marital disputes cannot by themselves amount to abetment to suicide, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday, as it set aside a conviction in a dowry harassment case.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar observed that to establish the offence of abetment to suicide, there must be clear evidence showing that the accused committed a direct or indirect act that left the victim with no option except to take their own life.

The court was hearing a case in which a woman died by suicide at her parental home after allegedly not speaking to her husband for 13 days following a dispute.

Her family accused the husband of dowry harassment, claiming that despite receiving Rs 3 lakh and 20 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage, he continued to pressure her to bring more money from her family.

According to records before the court, the husband was working in Muscat and there had been plans for the woman to join him. However, visa-related issues reportedly prevented her from travelling with him, leading to a dispute before he left for Muscat. After he left, there was no communication between the couple, following which the woman died by suicide.

The woman’s family lodged an FIR against the husband, his parents and two brothers, including a minor, alleging dowry harassment and abetment to suicide. A trial court sentenced the accused to three years in prison, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

Setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court said that temporary lack of communication or normal family tensions do not amount to "cruelty" under the law. The bench observed that the conduct in question must be so grave and compelling that it drives a woman to take the extreme step of suicide.

The court further said that ordinary disagreements, emotional disputes and stress in marital life cannot automatically be treated as criminal instigation for suicide. It held that the basis on which the lower courts had convicted the accused under Section 498A and awarded a three-year prison sentence was not legally sustainable.

- Ends