In a significant ruling rendered on May 7, 2026, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that his refusal to communicate with his wife over the telephone for merely thirteen days cannot, in the absence of cogent supporting evidence, be construed as "cruelty" within the meaning of the provision.
The case arose from the tragic suicide of Sangeetha, who died by hanging on January 31, 2015, at her parental home in Coimbatore. She had married the Appellant, Jayesh Kanna, on November 2, 2014. The Appellant, an Engineer based in Muscat, Oman, had left India on November 29, 2014. The deceased stayed with her in-laws for about one and a half months before shifting to her parents' house on January 18, 2015. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant's refusal to communicate with the deceased over phone — on the ground that she had gone to her parental home without the in-laws' permission — caused her immense mental agony, driving her to end her life.
An FIR was registered under Sections 498A and 304B IPC against the Appellant and four co-accused. The Trial Court acquitted all co-accused and also acquitted the Appellant under Section 304B, but convicted him under Section 498A, sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000. The Madras High Court confirmed this conviction, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Appellant's senior counsel, Mr. R. Basant, argued that the alleged cruelty was based solely on oral testimony without any call detail records to substantiate the claim of non-communication. He pointed out that the Appellant had actually attempted to contact the deceased, but her mobile phone was not functional, so he instead called her father.
The Respondent's counsel, Mr. Balaji Subramanian, contended that the Appellant's deliberate silence constituted serious mental cruelty that drove the deceased to suicide, warranting no interference.
The Court extensively discussed the scope of Section 498A IPC and relied upon Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 414] and Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam [(2009) 13 SCC 330], reaffirming that mental cruelty must be assessed on the facts of each case and that cruelty must be continuous or persistent — petty marital differences do not qualify. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to produce call detail records and that WhatsApp silence alone was insufficient proof.
The Court held that the prosecution utterly failed to establish the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It set aside the conviction and sentence, discharged the bail bonds, and directed return of the Appellant's passport.
Case Details:
Case no.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2382–2383 of 2026
Petitioner: Jayesh Kanna
Respondent: The Assistant Commissioner Law and Order (West) & Ors.
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Picture Source :