Refusing Phone Calls for 13 Days Is Not Cruelty Under Section 498A, Supreme Court Holds
A Division Bench acquits a husband convicted solely for not speaking to his wife by phone for thirteen days, holding the prosecution failed to produce call records to support the charge.
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a Coimbatore-based engineer under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, finding that his refusal to speak to his wife over the phone for approximately thirteen days — the sole surviving basis for the charge — did not amount to cruelty in the absence of corroborating call records. A Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382–2383 of 2026 on 7 May 2026, held that oral testimony alone was insufficient to establish the ingredient of cruelty, and that the prosecution had a duty to produce call detail records which it failed to discharge. Both the Trial Court's conviction and the Madras High Court's confirmation were set aside.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Jayesh Kanna married the deceased, Sangeetha, on 2 November 2014. He left for Muscat, Oman, where he worked as an engineer, on 29 November 2014 — roughly four weeks after the wedding. Sangeetha stayed with her in-laws for about one and a half months before shifting to her parental home on 18 January 2015. On 31 January 2015, between 5.00 and 6.45 P.M., she died by suicide at her parental home.
The police registered FIR No. 45 of 2015 with the B8 Variety Hall Road Police Station, Coimbatore, initially under Section 304B IPC. After investigation, charges were framed on 5 April 2016 against Jayesh Kanna and four co-accused — his father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two brothers-in-law — under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. One of the brothers-in-law was a juvenile and was not tried with the others.
The prosecution alleged that Jayesh Kanna repeatedly demanded that Sangeetha bring money from her parents, that the in-laws persistently agitated for additional dowry, and that a brother-in-law taunted the deceased about her complexion. The specific allegation against Jayesh Kanna that ultimately survived was that he reprimanded Sangeetha for visiting her parents without the in-laws' permission and then refused to speak to her on the phone, causing her severe mental agony that drove her to suicide.
The IV Additional District Judge/Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, in Session Case No. 248 of 2015, acquitted all co-accused of both charges, finding that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment were not proved against them. Jayesh Kanna was also acquitted of Section 304B IPC. He was, however, convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and, in default, six months' rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court also directed that his passport (marked M.O.12) be returned to the mother-in-law pending any appeal.
Jayesh Kanna filed a criminal appeal against his conviction and a separate criminal revision challenging the refusal to return his passport. The Madras High Court, by a common judgment dated 9 January 2023, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the revision. He then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, which were converted into Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382–2383 of 2026.
The Sole Surviving Allegation
Senior counsel Mr. R. Basant, appearing for Jayesh Kanna, pressed that the facts were stark: the couple had lived together for only about four weeks before he left for Oman. Sangeetha had shifted to her parental home on 18 January 2015 and died on 31 January 2015. The entire basis for the Section 498A conviction was the allegation that during those thirteen days, Jayesh Kanna did not speak to her by phone because she had gone to her parents without consulting the in-laws.
Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Balaji Subramanian, maintained that the appellant's deliberate non-communication had caused serious mental cruelty, driving Sangeetha to suicide, and that the conviction warranted no interference.
The Court noted that the witnesses — PW-1 (mother of the deceased), PW-2 (father), and PW-3 (sister) — had made various allegations of dowry demand and harassment in their oral testimony, but the Trial Court had found those allegations unproved against all accused, including Jayesh Kanna, on account of inconsistencies and improvements from the FIR. The allegation of abetment of suicide was also not proved. What remained was only the instance of non-communication by phone and the appellant's displeasure at Sangeetha returning to her parental home without permission.
What Section 498A Requires and What the Precedents Say
The Court set out the text of Section 498A IPC, which punishes a husband or his relative for subjecting a woman to cruelty. The Explanation defines cruelty to include “any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide.” It also covers harassment aimed at coercing the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property.
The Court drew on two precedents. In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P., (2002) 7 SCC 414, the Court had held that whether a spouse has been guilty of cruelty is essentially a question of fact, and that mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on sensitivity, social background, education, and the degree of endurance. In Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330, the Court had observed that cruelty under Section 498A must be established in its own statutory context, that it must be continuous or persistent or at least in close proximity to the complaint, and that petty quarrels cannot be termed cruelty.
Synthesising these, the Bench held that there is no uniform thumb rule for determining mental cruelty; each case turns on its own facts. The gravity or seriousness of the conduct must be such that it is likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause danger to her mental health. Persistent harassment in close proximity to the complaint is a relevant factor. A petty quarrel is not enough.
Why the Evidence Was Insufficient
The Court found the prosecution's case deficient on two distinct grounds: the quality of the evidence and the nature of the act itself.
On evidence, the Court held that the prosecution was duty-bound to prove the allegation of non-communication with call detail records of the deceased, the appellant, and the parents of the deceased who had deposed against him. Oral testimony alone was not sufficient. Jayesh Kanna had stated in his defence that he had tried to contact Sangeetha but her mobile phone was not working, and that he had therefore called her father. The prosecution produced WhatsApp chat records showing no messages from the appellant to the deceased, but the Court found this unpersuasive: the absence of WhatsApp messages did not rule out ordinary phone calls. The prosecution's failure to produce call records meant the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On the nature of the act, the Court found that the conduct alleged — not speaking on the phone for thirteen days and expressing displeasure at Sangeetha visiting her parents without the in-laws' permission — did not meet the threshold of cruelty under Section 498A. There was no proved allegation of harassment or cruelty during the period Sangeetha had lived with Jayesh Kanna and his family from the date of marriage until he left for Muscat. The deceased could not travel to Muscat because her passport formalities were pending and a visa could not be issued; this was not a case of the appellant preventing her from joining him.
The Court observed that differences in marital life are ordinary and may result in periods of non-communication, but this was not even a case where a quarrel had been established. It held that “mere non-communication with the deceased for thirteen days, without substantiating the same with cogent evidence, cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, fall within the ambit of cruelty.”
The High Court's Error
The Court found that the High Court had confirmed the Trial Court's findings without due appreciation of the evidence. Once the allegation of cruelty was not proved against any of the co-accused, and once the only surviving allegation against Jayesh Kanna was non-communication for some days without proof of the same through call records, there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The prosecution had, in the Court's words, “utterly failed to establish the ingredients to prove the charge under Section 498A IPC.”
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals. The conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC were set aside. Since Jayesh Kanna had been granted exemption from surrendering by the Court's order dated 4 October 2024 and had been on bail throughout the trial, his bail bonds were discharged.
On the passport issue, the Court directed that since the conviction had been set aside, the passport of the appellant — if still seized by the Trial Court — shall be returned to him. The criminal revision challenging the refusal to return the passport accordingly also stood allowed.
All pending applications were disposed of.