Supreme Court: Mere Non-Communication With Wife Is Not Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498A (now Section 85, BNS) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that merely not communicating with his wife for thirteen days, without any cogent supporting evidence, cannot amount to cruelty. In Jayesh Kanna v. The Assistant Commissioner of Law and Order (West), reported as 2026 INSC 615, a Bench of Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar acquitted the appellant, ruling that silence between spouses for a short period, standing alone, does not fall within the legal meaning of cruelty.

The Facts of the Case

According to the record, the wife had married the appellant in 2014 and died by suicide at her parental home in early 2015. A case was registered against the husband and his family members, originally invoking the provisions dealing with cruelty and with dowry death. At trial, the accused were acquitted of the dowry-related charge, but the husband was convicted of cruelty on the reasoning that his conduct, including not speaking to his wife for about thirteen days, had driven her to take her life. It was this conviction for cruelty that the Supreme Court examined on appeal.

What Section 498A (now Section 85, BNS) Requires

Section 498A (now Section 85, BNS) of the Indian Penal Code penalises a husband or his relatives who subject a woman to cruelty, where cruelty includes wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, as well as harassment connected with unlawful demands for property. The Court emphasised that the conduct alleged must meet this threshold and must be established by cogent evidence. Mere non-communication for a limited period, without proof that it was wilful conduct of the gravity the section contemplates, does not satisfy the test. The Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction and accordingly set it aside. Because the offence dated to 2015, it was governed by the Indian Penal Code, the predecessor to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that now applies to fresh cases.

The judgment continues a line of recent decisions cautioning against an expansive reading of matrimonial cruelty provisions. It is useful background for anyone seeking to understand the difference between genuine cruelty and ordinary marital discord, a distinction that also matters when a spouse considers how to file a domestic violence complaint under the DV Act.

Why the Ruling Matters

The decision matters because Section 498A (now Section 85, BNS) cases often turn on broad allegations that are difficult to test. By insisting on cogent evidence and a real connection between conduct and consequence, the Court reinforces that criminal liability cannot rest on inference alone. For an accused, the ruling underlines the importance of knowing your rights if you are arrested and the process for applying for regular bail under the BNSS. For complainants, it is a reminder that allegations must be supported by specific, provable facts.

The acquittal does not mean the law treats spousal misconduct lightly. It means that the criminal standard, proof beyond reasonable doubt of conduct meeting the statutory definition, must be satisfied before a person is branded a criminal. Family courts and civil remedies remain available for grievances that do not meet the criminal threshold, and protective laws continue to apply where genuine cruelty, harassment or violence is established. The decision simply guards the line between the two, ensuring the criminal process is reserved for conduct that truly warrants it.

How Courts Distinguish Cruelty From Ordinary Discord

Indian courts have long drawn a line between conduct that is genuinely cruel and the friction that exists in many marriages. Cruelty under the cruelty provision must be wilful conduct of a degree and character likely to drive a woman to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or harassment tied to an unlawful demand. Occasional quarrels, temporary withdrawal, or a husband declining to speak for a short spell do not, by themselves, reach that threshold. The prosecution must connect the specific conduct to the gravity the section demands and prove it with reliable evidence rather than relying on the tragic outcome to infer guilt backwards. The Court's insistence on this distinction protects against the conversion of every unhappy marriage that ends in tragedy into a criminal conviction, while leaving the provision fully available where real cruelty is proved.

Related Reading

On the financial dimension of matrimonial disputes, see our guide on how to file a maintenance case under Section 144 BNSS.

On the Court's recent concern for dignity in the criminal process, see the Supreme Court striking down degrading bail conditions.

Key Takeaways

In Jayesh Kanna v. Assistant Commissioner of Law and Order (West), 2026 INSC 615, the Supreme Court held that not speaking to a wife for thirteen days, without cogent evidence, does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A (now Section 85, BNS) of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the husband. The ruling reaffirms that convictions for matrimonial cruelty require proof of wilful conduct of real gravity, not merely allegations of brief estrangement.