Delay in filing complaint not necessarily proof of absence of cruelty to wife: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a mere delay in filing a complaint of marital cruelty does not necessarily negate the occurrence of cruelty or harassment to a woman by her husband or in-laws during her marriage [Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat]..A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale made the observation while refusing to discharge a deceased woman's husband and in-laws, from a case involving allegations of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).In their defence, the accused had argued that the wife had not made any complaint of cruelty or harassment during the twelve years of marriage and it was only her father who had made the complaint after her death by suicide.However, the Court rejected the argument and held that merely because the wife did not file any complaint for twelve years, it does not automatically imply that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment."The appellants’ argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment," the Court observed..The Court, however, discharged the accused from the abetment of suicide case filed against them in the matter.The Court found no proximate link between the accusations against them and the woman's death by suicide, since some of the primary allegations of cruelty (that she was forced to sell ornaments and thereafter subjected to harassment) occurred at least ten years before her death."...selling of gold ornaments and the same was followed by discord and harassment upon their demand, even if true, do not reflect any intention to instigate, incite or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws do not appear to create a scenario where she was left with no option other than to end her life. There is, therefore, absence of mens rea to instigate suicide of the deceased persons," the Court said..The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the husband and his family members challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to discharge them for offences under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 498A (cruelty) and 114 (related to abetment) of the IPC.The wife of the appellant-husband had died by suicide after around twelve years of marriage.After her death, her father alleged that his daughter was subjected to physical and mental harassment and was also forced to sell her ornaments, given to her as streedhan (dowry) for her marriage.Her father added that whenever his daughter demanded the ornaments back, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment.Therefore, he alleged that his had died by suicide due to constant harassment by her husband and in-laws. The accused had first challenged the first information report (FIR) filed against them, which the High Court dismissed. An appeal against the High Court's dismissal before the Supreme Court was later withdrawn. Thereafter, the accused preferred a discharge application before the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed. This order was later upheld by the High Court which led the accused (appellants) to approach the Supreme Court again..The Court partly allowed the appeal and discharged the accused from the suicide abetment case. However, the Court refused to close the cruelty case against them. "From a perusal of the FIR, findings of the Investigating Officer in the chargesheet as well as the statements of the deceased’s cousins recorded during investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband and the in-laws," the Court observed..Senior Advocate Tejas Barot, and advocates Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala and Aditya Tripathi, appeared for the appellants.Advocates Swati Ghildiyal, Devyani Bhatt and Neha Singh, appeared for respondent..[Read Judgment]