A husband cannot sit quiet if his wife is having an illicit relationship with someone else, and admonishing the wife for the said act would not in any manner amount to abetment to suicide, the Telangana High Court has held [B Nagamani v. State of Telangana].
Justice K Surender was hearing a plea filed by the sister of the husband seeking to quash the case filed against them on behalf of the deceased wife who was allegedly tortured and harassed by her husband and in-laws for having an illicit relationship outside the marriage.
The judge observed that the wife’s actions would adversely affect her family and the bond with her husband.
“Wife having illicit intimacy with another would in fact have an adverse effect on the husband and family, both personally and also in the society. The husband cannot sit quite if the wife is having illicit intimacy with another person,” the order stated.
The factum of illicit intimacy is not disputed and the person with whom the deceased had illicit relation has been made an accused in her suicide case, the Court noted.
The Bench said that one can understand if there is no illicit relation with another person and yet the husband and in-laws are making false allegations. But in the instant case, the illicit relationship of the deceased was proved.
“Abetment would be active instigation by doing acts which would compel a person to commit suicide. Admonishing wife for having illicit intimacy will not in any manner amount to abetting the wife to commit suicide,” it held.
As far as the sister of the husband was concerned, the Bench noted that she was already married by the time the deceased and her brother were married.
“The deceased and her husband were married nearly 18 years prior to the incident. Petitioner was living separately and even accepting the version of the prosecution that this petitioner in support of her brother (husband of deceased) had in any manner admonished the deceased, it will not amount to an offence either under Section 498-A or Section 306 of IPC,” the bench opined.
With these observations, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against her.
Advocate Palle Srinivas Reddy appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor S Sudershan represented the State.
Advocate Venkat Raghu Ramulu appeared for the complainant.
You must log in to post a comment.