Calling Wife ‘Stupid’ And "Useless" Not By Itself Cruelty Or Criminal Intimidation; Husband's Temperamental Issue Cannot Be Given Criminal Colour: Supreme Court
The Court quashed a dowry death case against the husband of a woman who died by suicide in Toronto, and said that the allegations raised only after her death lacked specifics and nexus.
The Supreme Court has observed that calling a spouse “stupid” and “useless”, even if accepted at face value, cannot qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation. The Court held that such conduct “at best, reflects on the temperament of the husband” and cannot be given a criminal colour so grave as to become the reason for the wife’s suicide. It added that a spouse’s temperamental issue cannot be equated with criminal intimidation or grievous hurt, particularly when material in support of the allegations is absent.
The Bench quashed an FIR against a man booked under Sections 304B, 323, 498A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, after his wife died by suicide in Toronto on June 11, 2023. The Court held that the dowry allegations surfaced only after her death, were not mentioned in her suicide note, and were not shown to have any nexus with the death. It set aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings against him.
A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan observed, “…The allegation that the appellant used to call the deceased ‘stupid’ and ‘useless’, even if accepted prima facie, cannot to any extent qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation. At best, it reflects on the temperament of the husband, but it cannot be given a criminal colour so grave as to become the reason for the suicide of his wife. Similarly, the allegation that the appellant was short tempered and used to scold the deceased over trifle issues is also not sustainable as respondent No.2 has failed to put forth any material evidence on record so as to satisfy this Court of the merits of the said allegations…”.
“…A temperamental issue of a spouse cannot be equated with the offence of criminal intimidation or grievous hurt so as to make him criminally liable for the suicide of his wife as the same tantamounts to abuse of process of law, particularly when material in support of the same is conspicuous by its absence. We understand the plight and pain of the family members of the deceased who have gone through the tragedy of losing their daughter but the husband and the in-laws, cannot be made to bear the brunt of the same without first demonstrating any act or omission on their part that coerced the deceased to such an extent that committing suicide was the only way out”, it noted further.
Advocate Bharat Chugh appeared for the appellant and Advocate Varad Kilor appeared for the respondent.
“…Merely stating that the appellant mentally harassed the deceased with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, especially in the absence of any cogent material or evidence on record in support of such allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instances of commission or omission. The tendency to invoke these provisions without mentioning specific details weakens the prosecution's case and casts serious doubt on the viability of the complainant's version”, the Bench further said.
The appellant married the deceased on January 3, 2021, and the couple moved to Toronto in February 2022. She died on June 11, 2023, leaving a handwritten note attributing her despair to her failure to find a job. Her father lodged an FIR on June 30, 2023, alleging dowry demands, abuse and extramarital affairs. A Canadian coroner’s statement and the Toronto Police closure report found no foul play, no signs of struggle, and the appellant absent from the apartment.
The High Court refused to quash the proceedings against the appellant but quashed them against his parents and sister. A chargesheet was filed and non-bailable warrants were issued on February 4, 2025. The Supreme Court issued notice on August 11, 2025, and directed that no coercive steps be taken.
The Court noted there was “not even a whiff” of any dowry allegation between the marriage and the death. It held that the 15 tolas of gold were gifted to both the appellant and the deceased, and that Diwali gifts could be customary. It treated the Rs 1,00,000 transfer as one of many transactions made around the time of the deceased’s travel to India. Calling the appellant “stupid” and “useless”, even if accepted, “at best, it reflects on the temperament of the husband” and is not an offence.
“…A perusal of the material and documents on record would reveal that the prosecution has not been able to satisfy this Court that the said gifts were given as part of a dowry demanded by the appellant and his family. The very first Diwali after the solemnization of marriage marks a special milestone in the life of newlyweds, where usually both families exchange gifts such as new clothes, jewellery, and sweets as a tradition. In these circumstances, it is very plausible that, while extending gifts to his own daughter on the occasion of Diwali, respondent No.2 extended the same courtesy to his son-inlaw and his parents, as a part of custom and tradition. To taint this exchange between the parties with a criminal colour, without any antecedents or substantial material on record, runs afoul of the very basis of the case. Furthermore, such isolated acts of exchange of gifts on an auspicious festival, when seen in the larger context, cannot be a factor of cause-and-effect with the suicide of the deceased, which occurred nearly a year thereafter. Nor does the suicide note make any mention of the involvement of the accused husband or his family, in the context of dowry demands, cruelty, criminal intimidation, or causing grievous hurt…”, the Bench noted.
“…What transpired in the mind of the unfortunate victim cannot be extended to drag the husband and his family members to the cause for suicide in the absence of any material on record to prove or substantiate their culpability. To attract the rigours of Section 304B of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In this aspect, the prosecution has failed to produce before this Court any cogent evidence or material that may substantiate its claim that the appellant made illegal demands for dowry and that the said demand had a reasonable nexus to the suicide committed by the deceased-wife. In absence of any evidence to support the allegation of demand for dowry, the offence under Section 304B cannot be attracted. In this case, any prosecution with respect to the same, in our view, would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law”, it noted further.
Cause Title: P v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1183).
Appearances:
Appellant: Bharat Chugh, Jai Allagh, Mayank Arora, Maanish Mohan Chaudhary, Pushp Sharma, Ekam Bath, Saksham Tyagi, Sarthak Mittal, Abhinav Agrawal, Siddharth Jain- 3984, AOR.
Respondent: Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande- 3259, AOR, Shrirang B. Varma, Dr. Arvind S. Avhad- 2111, AOR, Rishabh Singh, Advocates.