Matrimonial Cruelty Is Continuing Offence; Delay In Reporting Same Doesn’t Necessarily Erode Complaint’s Credibility: Kerala High Court
The High Court was considering a revision petition filed by the accused husband challenging his conviction in a case registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
While reducing the sentence of a man booked for dowry harassment and cruelty, the Kerala High Court has held that matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence and the delay in reporting the same does not by itself necessarily erode the credibility of the complaint.
The High Court was considering a revision petition filed by the accused husband challenging his conviction in a case registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Single Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha held, “Matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence, as the suffering of the victim does not end with a single isolated incident but continues so long as oppressive conduct persists. Harassment and cruelty within the marriage cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in the context of continuous conduct.”
“Therefore, the delay in reporting the matrimonial cruelty does not by itself necessarily erode the credibility of the complaint, provided the prosecution version is otherwise found to be believable”, it added.
Amicus Curiae Vishnu Premkumar represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Maya M N represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The revision petitioner and his mother faced trial for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC on the allegation that they subjected the wife to cruelty and demanded dowry. In the appeal preferred by both the accused, the mother was acquitted, but the conviction against the revision petitioner was confirmed. However, the sentence against him was modified into simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
Arguments
The revision petitioner contended that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were wrong in analysing the evidence in its correct perspective, and also failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the complaint by the wife.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that the revisional power of the Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. “Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction”, it added.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the wound certificate, coupled with the evidence of the doctor, fortified the version of the de facto complainant wife that she sustained injuries due to the assault of the accused. The Bench also found the accused’s contention that the delay in lodging the complaint was fatal to the prosecution's case to be untenable.
The Bench asserted that the testimony of a victim of matrimonial cruelty must be appreciated with sensitivity, and a hyper-technical approach in such matters would defeat the very object of Section 498A IPC. As per the Bench, the version of the wife was natural, cogent and inspired confidence in the mind of the court, and therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve her version that the revision petitioner subjected her to cruelty by demanding dowry. “PW1 is a rustic village woman and therefore the slight discrepancies in her evidence, while narrating the dates of the incident, cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution case. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case that the revision petitioner/A1, who is the husband of PW1 subjected PW1 to matrimonial cruelty, demanding dowry”, it added.
The Bench further explained, “Assaulting the wife in connection with dowry demands is not a mere domestic dispute but a serious offence rooted in greed, coercion and gender based violence. When a woman is physically harmed because she or her family cannot meet the unlawful dowry demands, it reflects the deliberate and oppressive misuse of power within the matrimonial home.”
Considering that the amicus curiae requested the Court to show some leniency in the matter of sentence, the Bench confirmed the conviction against the revision petitioner/ accused for the offence under Section 498A IPC, but reduced the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment to six months.
Cause Title: A v. The State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation:2026:KER:15653)