Extra-marital affairs of a man and his wife's suspicion do not always amount to mental cruelty attracting the provision of abetment to suicide but can be a ground for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court today said.
The remarks were made in a case in which a woman committed suicide due to her husband's alleged extra-marital affairs and the other woman too ended her life due to humiliation.
The misery did not end here and later the mother and brother of the man's alleged paramour also committed suicide.
The apex court was dealing with an appeal filed by the man against his conviction and four-year sentence for causing harassment and mental cruelty to his wife which led her to commit suicide.
The top court acquitted the man of all charges holding that these provisions including section 306 of IPC added by the Karnataka High Court and trial under section 498A of IPC were wrong.
A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy held that "extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498A (harassment to married woman by her husband or his family members) of IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence."
"To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of IPC," the bench said.
It added that there is no denial of the fact that cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case and it will depend upon the facts of the said case.
"Having said that we intend to make it clear that if the husband gets involved in an extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances invite conviction under Section 306 of the IPC but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other enactments. And we so clarify," the bench said.
Maintaining that the concept of mental cruelty depends on
the milieu and the strata from which people come and has an individualistic perception, the bench said it is difficult to generalise but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts.
"In the instant case, as the evidence would limpidly show, the wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was going to the house of a person in Chelur village where he got involved with his daughter.
"It has come on record through various witnesses that the people talked in the locality with regard to the involvement of the appellant with the woman. It needs to be noted that the woman, being not able to digest the humiliation, committed suicide," the bench noted and added that her mother and brother paved the same path.
"In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to hold that the prosecution has established the charge under Section 498A and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit suicide.
"It is manifest that the wife was guided by the rumour that aggravated her suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted in mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt of the accused-appellant under Section 306 of the IPC," the bench said.
