The Supreme Court (SC) recently provided relief to a husband from criminal cases of 498A (cruelty) and 304B (dowry death) by ruling that a brief period of non-communication with his wife, without more substantial evidence, could not be treated as “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The SC observed that differences and temporary non-communication can occur in married life and do not automatically amount to criminal charges of cruelty.This judgement came in an appeal filed by an engineer employed in Muscat, Oman. According to the submission, he married on November 2, 2014, and lived with his wife till November 29, 2014, before returning to Muscat for work. The wife could not accompany him because her passport formalities were still pending, preventing her from obtaining the visa required to travel to Oman. So, she stayed back in her in-laws’ house for about one and half months, and then on January 18, 2015, she shifted to her parents’ house.Upon discovering this, the husband told his wife that he would terminate all communication with her, as she had gone to her parents’ house without consulting either him or his parents. Her parents said that during her stay at their house, he (the husband) did not even speak to their daughter on the telephone.Her parents alleged that due to his actions, she came under immense mental agony and subsequently took her own life on January 31, 2015, between 5 pm and 6 pm by hanging herself at her parental home. With these allegations, the police initially filed an FIR (No. 45 of 2025, dated February 31, 2015) for an offence under Section 304B IPC (dowry death). After further investigation and submission of the chargesheet, the Trial Court framed charges against him and the co-accused (in-laws) under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 304B IPC via an order dated April 5, 2016.In his defence, he maintained that he had tried to call his wife, but since her phone was not working, he called her father instead. But her father and mother in their testimony did not support his (the husband’s) claim and said he did not call her.What led to this criminal conviction for himHer parents allegedly gave him Rs 3 lakh in cash, 20 sovereigns of gold jewellery, one sovereign chain of 3 gm gold, dollar, 1/2 sovereign ring, a 3 gm kanganam, and 2 kg of silver at the time of marriage. They also alleged that he often pressurised their daughter to bring more money from her parents and that his parents (in-laws) regularly harassed her over the issue. They also alleged that her brother-in-law used to scold and humiliate her because of her dark complexion. During the trial, the prosecution alleged that he reprimanded her for visiting her parents against his family’s wishes and refused to speak to her over the phone. The prosecution alleged that this non-communication caused severe mental agony to the deceased, forcing her to commit suicide on January 31, 2015.On such allegations, the Police, Coimbatore City, registered a case under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC against him and four family members, including his father, mother, and two brothers, one of whom is a juvenile. The trial was conducted only against four accused persons while no trial took place for the juvenile. On November 29, 2018, the trial court convicted him of criminal charges under Section 498A and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000, with a stipulation that failure to pay would result in an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment. On January 9, 2023, the Madras High Court upheld this sentence and denied him any relief. He then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.On May 7, 2026, he won the case in the Supreme Court.Supreme Court order and discussionThe Supreme Court said that the substance of the allegation against him, which has resulted in his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC, is that his refusal to communicate with her over the phone and his displeasure over her going to her parental home without informing the in-laws caused her distress, ultimately leading her to commit suicide. A summary of the Supreme Court’s order:Mere oral testimony, which says non-communication compelled her to commit suicide, is not sufficient to attract a cruelty chargeThe Supreme Court said that the law says that the prosecution must establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge as alleged against the accused. It is not the accused who has to dispel such burden, especially when the charge under Section 498A of the IPC is involved. In this legal background, the Supreme Court said that the witness’ testimony about his displeasure since she came to her parental home and his decision to not communicate over phone calls—the evidence is only oral. The Supreme Court said that the prosecution was duty-bound to prove such an allegation of lack of communication between him (husband) and her (wife) with the call details of his, her, and her parents, who deposed against him. In his defense, he (the husband) stated that he made an attempt to communicate with her; however, it could not be materialised because her mobile phone was not in order; therefore, he called her father.The Supreme Court said: “In such circumstances, merely oral testimony to say that because of non-communication on the part of the Appellant (the husband), the deceased (the wife) was compelled to commit suicide was not sufficient to bring the charge within the purview of cruelty.” The Supreme Court said that it is the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence in the form of call details, supporting oral testimony. The said duty has not been discharged. WhatsApp chats showing no messages being sent to her can’t be used as evidence to prove a cruelty chargeThe Supreme Court observed that the prosecution has placed reliance upon WhatsApp chats showing that no messages were sent by him to her to prove that there was no conversation.The Supreme Court said that in their opinion not sending messages over WhatsApp is also not sufficient since the conversation may have been made through normal phone calls also.The Supreme Court said: “Moreover, in order to establish the charge of cruelty, the willful conduct of the accused must be of such a compelling nature, which may drive the deceased to commit suicide.” In this regard, as per the findings recorded by the trial court and the high court, the Supreme Court said that it appears that she could not have travelled to Muscat along with him due to pending formalities in her passport due to which the visa could not be issued. The Supreme Court observed that it is not a case where any allegation of harassment and cruelty has been proved during their brief period of stay from the date of marriage till he went from India to Muscat. Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it, and such differences may result in non-communicationThe Supreme Court said that in the absence of any material, mere non-communication with the deceased for 13 days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty in the facts of this case. The Supreme Court said: “Differences in marital life are a part and parcel of it, and such differences may result in non-communication, but it is not even a case where there was some quarrel between the Appellant (husband) and the deceased (wife), due to which the Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court.”Thus, the Supreme Court said that once the allegation of cruelty is not proved against him or the co-accused, merely not talking to her for some days, proof whereof is also not available, would not suffice to construe an act of cruelty by the Appellant. The Supreme Court said: “The judgement of the high court is without due appreciation of evidence, and in our view, there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegation of cruelty.”Order:The Supreme Court overturned the high court’s and trial court’s order and said that the findings of conviction on proof of cruelty and harassment are without any cogent evidence.Since he was on bail pursuant to an interim order of the Supreme Court on October 4, 2024, thus, if any bail bond(s), is executed by him, then the same shall also stand discharged. Since his passport was seized due to this criminal case, the Supreme Court ordered that it be given back to him.The reason for refusal to return the passport was his conviction under Section 498A, but now since the appeals against such conviction and sentence are allowed by this order, in consequence, the Supreme Court directed that the passport of the Appellant, if seized by the trial court, shall be returned to him. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.