CHENNAI: Observing that an illicit relationship alone would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC, the Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of a husband in a case relating to his wife's suicide, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case.

According to the prosecution, the husband and wife married in September 2008. The husband allegedly subjected his wife to cruelty over dowry demands, had an illicit relationship with another woman and failed to take proper care of his wife and child. The wife allegedly died by suicide by jumping into the water along with their one-and-a-half-year-old child. The husband was charged under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.

The trial court acquitted the husband, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the dowry demand or cruelty that drove the wife to suicide. Challenging the acquittal, the wife's brother argued that the trial court had ignored the evidence of his mother and other witnesses.

After hearing both sides, Justice Sunder Mohan noted that although the witnesses had referred to an alleged dowry demand, the allegation was vague. Their evidence suggested that the marital discord was primarily due to the husband's illicit relationship with another woman.

The court noted that the complaint filed by the wife's brother about her disappearance mentioned the husband's illicit relationship but made no reference to any dowry demand. The complainant claimed that the deceased had told her mother about the dowry demand and asked her not to disclose it to her father or brother. However, the court found this explanation unconvincing, observing that there was no reason to keep such an allegation secret and that the complainant would have mentioned it in the complaint if the demand had been made.

The court held that the trial judge's finding that the illicit relationship had not been proved because the woman concerned was not examined was perverse. However, it clarified that an illicit relationship alone would not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.

Regarding the dowry demand, the court rejected the deceased's mother's claim that the deceased had told her about it a few days before the incident. It noted that the allegation was vague, was not mentioned in the earliest version, but was subsequently improved upon by the prosecution witnesses.

The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case, though it disagreed with the trial court's reasons for acquittal, and dismissed the criminal appeal.