Calling wife ‘stupid’, ‘useless’ not cruelty: Supreme Court quashes case against husband after her suicide

The Supreme Court on Monday quashed a dowry death and cruelty case against a man whose wife died by suicide.

The Court observed that allegations that he called her “stupid” and “useless”, even if true, do not constitute cruelty or criminal intimidation.

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Manmohan set aside a Bombay High Court order refusing to quash the proceedings against the husband, finding no material establishing a nexus between the alleged harassment and his wife’s death.

“The allegation that the appellant used to call the deceased ‘stupid’ and ‘useless,’ even if accepted prima facie, cannot to any extent qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation. At best, it reflects on the temperament of the husband, but it cannot be given a criminal colour so grave as to become the reason for the suicide of his wife,” the Court observed.

The Bench also stressed that general allegations of harassment, without details of specific offending acts, were insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.

The couple married in January 2021 and moved to Toronto, Canada in February 2022. The wife died by suicide in June 2023. Her suicide note referred to difficulties with her studies and finding employment as well as feelings of being “stupid” and “useless”.

Her father lodged a complaint in Maharashtra in June 2023, alleging that the husband and his family demanded gold and money as dowry and subjected his daughter to physical and mental harassment.

A first information report (FIR) was registered invoking Sections 304B (dowry death), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 498A (cruelty by a husband or his relatives) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace), read with Section 34 (common intention), of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sections 3 (giving or taking dowry) and 4 (demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act were also invoked.

Canadian investigators found no signs of struggle or foul play and closed their investigation in January 2024.

The Bombay High Court quashed the proceedings against the husband’s parents and sister, but refused him the same relief. It found that the allegations of dowry demands and mental cruelty warranted further investigation. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.

Examining the wedding gift of 15 tolas of gold, the Court noted that it had been given to both newlyweds. It observed that the deceased’s father may have presented the jewellery out of love and affection as a wedding gift, which could not be construed as dowry when not attributable to a dowry demand.

The Bench also found no material showing that the husband had demanded the ₹1 lakh received from his wife’s brother as dowry.

Therefore, singling out any one transaction, out of context, cannot be determined to be inculpatory enough to warrant prosecution of the appellant under Section 304B of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act,” said the Court.

On the dowry death charge, the Court stressed that the prosecution had to establish dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before the woman’s death. It found no cogent material substantiating the alleged demands or establishing their nexus with her suicide.

The Bench also noted that the suicide note referred to stress over employment and studies but made no mention of the husband or his family.

“Had there been even an iota of mental or physical agony caused by the unlawful demands of dowry by the appellant and his family, the same would, in the natural course, have found mention in the suicide note,” the Bench added.

On the other allegations of harassment, the Court said,

“Mere general allegations of harassment, without specifics against such persons, would not suffice to continue criminal proceedings. This holds true even when the prosecution seeks to establish a reasonable nexus between the commission of suicide and the alleged harassment, cruelty, and criminal intimidation."

It thus set aside the High Court order and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings against the husband.

Advocates Bharat Chugh, Jai Allagh, Mayank Arora, Maanish Mohan Chaudhary, Pushp Sharma, Ekam Bath, Saksham Tyagi, Sarthak Mittal, Abhinav Agrawal and Siddharth Jain appeared for the appellant.

Advocates Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B Varma, Dr Arvind S Avhad and Rishabh Singh appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]