High Time That Men Unlearn Inherited Dogma That Marriage Entitles Them To Unquestioned Authority: Madras High Court Convicts Octogenarian Husband In Cruelty Case
The Madras High Court said that the Court cannot be a mute spectator to the continuing subjugation of elderly women who, after decades of service, sacrifice, and loyalty, are left to face cruelty and abandonment within their own homes.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
While convicting an octogenarian husband in a cruelty case, the Madras High Court has remarked that it is high time that men unlearn inherited dogma that marriage entitles them to unquestioned authority.
The Madurai Bench was hearing an Appeal filed by the wife, challenging the Judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, by which the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were set aside.
A Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed, “The victim in this case, now an octogenarian, is emblematic of that generation of Indian women who bore persistent mental and emotional cruelty with stoic silence, hoping that endurance was their virtue and tolerance their duty. Such misplaced endurance, often glorified in societal narratives, has emboldened generations of men to exercise control, dominance, and neglect under the garb of patriarchal privilege. It is high time that men in this land unlearn this inherited dogma that marriage entitles them to unquestioned authority and begin to understand that the comfort, safety, needs, and dignity of their wives are not secondary duties but core obligations of the marital bond, especially in their twilight years.”
The Bench said that the Court cannot be a mute spectator to the continuing subjugation of elderly women who, after decades of service, sacrifice, and loyalty, are left to face cruelty and abandonment within their own homes.
Advocate D. Saravanan appeared on behalf of the Appellant, while Government Advocate M. Sakthikumar and Advocate N. Dilip Kumar appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Factual Background
In the lead case, the Trial Court found the accused husband guilty under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The other two accused were found guilty under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of IPC. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the accused’s Appeal and held that the prosecution failed to establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC, and that the alleged extra-marital affair would not, by itself, constitute ‘cruelty’ under Section 498-A.
The acquittal of other two accused was not disturbed. The Appellant-wife challenged the reversal of the accused husband on grounds of misappreciation of evidence, misapplication of law on hearsay and on Section 498-A, ignoring binding precedents, overlooking proven acts of mental and economic cruelty, and factual misreading.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Marriage, in the Indian ethos, has long been revered as a sacrament, a sacred bond sanctified by tradition and endurance. But the sanctity of marriage does not lie in one-sided submission or silent suffering. The true essence of that sacrament lies in mutual respect, companionship, and compassion. This case stands as a solemn reminder of the unseen sufferings of women, particularly those of advanced years who have spent their entire lives enduring indignities, humiliation, and deprivation in the name of preserving family honour and marital sanctity.”
The Court said that when the law of the land through Section 498-A IPC extends its protective mantle to women, it does so not merely to punish, but to awaken social conscience.
“The conviction of an octogenarian husband in this case is not an act of vengeance but an assertion of the principle that age cannot sanctify cruelty, and that no marital bond can justify indignity”, it added.
The Court was of the view that the Appellant has rightly urged that age/health is not a defence to the offence.
“On balance, the sentence awarded is measured and just; it warrants affirmation. No special reason is made out for reduction or enhancement in the facts preserved for this appeal”, it held.
The Court further observed that the First Appellate Court’s acquittal of accused is vitiated by misdirection in law and non-consideration of material evidence and is unsustainable.
“I have no hesitation to hold that Accused No.1 is guilty under Section 498-A IPC, for the simple reason that on the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC has been clearly established against the Accused No.1. The nature of emotional and economic abuse inflicted on the defacto complainant, compelling her to pursue several cases endlessly without giving quietus to the dispute for nearly 18 years since 16.02.2007, the date on which she was subjected to isolation would amount to “cruelty” warranting conviction”, it also held.
The Court reiterated that Section 498-A addresses both economic and emotional subjugation and isolation, deprivation of basic necessities, humiliation of faith, enforced dependence, and coercion to mobilise money are not mere “domestic discord”; they are actionable cruelty when they cross the threshold of grave mental injury.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court remarked that while Courts remain cautious of over-criminalisation of familial disputes, equally, the invisibility of domestic cruelty cannot be allowed to cloak impunity.
“The message that emanates from this judgment must resonate beyond the confines of the courtroom: that the endurance of women, particularly elderly wives, should no longer be mistaken for consent, nor their silence for acceptance. The Indian marriage system, while rooted in noble ideals, must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect”, it said.
The Court noted that protecting octogenarian women who have lived entire lifetimes within oppressive domestic environments is not merely an act of legal redress, but a reaffirmation of the constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21.
“It is a tribute to those women who, despite their frailty, stand before the Courts seeking not revenge, but recognition of their suffering and restoration of their dignity”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, convicted the accused, and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ & Anr. (Case Number: CRL A(MD)No.17 of 2018)
