The Supreme Court of India held that a delay in filing a complaint of marital cruelty does not automatically imply the absence of such cruelty or harassment. The judgment came in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat, where the father of a woman who died by suicide filed a complaint accusing her husband and in-laws of subjecting her to cruelty during her marriage.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale observed that the argument made by the accused, claiming that the wife never lodged a complaint during her twelve years of marriage, did not absolve them of the allegations. The accused contended that the complaint, filed by the deceased’s father after her death, was baseless since no prior complaints had been made by the woman herself. However, the Court rejected this defense, emphasizing that “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 also addressed the issue of suicide abetment. While it found no direct connection between the alleged cruelty and the woman’s suicide, it ruled that the accusations of cruelty were significant enough to proceed with the case under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court discharged the accused from the charges of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, finding no clear evidence to suggest that the harassment led to the woman taking her life.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of not dismissing cruelty cases solely based on the absence of prior complaints, recognizing that many women may not report harassment immediately due to various social, psychological, or familial pressures. The Court stated, “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.”
The case dates back to the tragic suicide of the woman after around twelve years of marriage. Her father alleged that she had been physically and mentally harassed and was forced to sell her streedhan (dowry ornaments) by her husband and in-laws. These claims led to the initial filing of the FIR against the accused, who had challenged the charges in various courts before the matter reached the Supreme Court.
In conclusion, while the Court ruled to continue the case related to cruelty, it found no sufficient grounds to charge the accused with abetment of suicide, stating that “murderous intent or provocation to commit suicide was absent” in the situation. The legal battle continues as the case progresses under Section 498A, shedding light on the complexities of marital cruelty and the challenges in seeking justice posthumously.
