Husband’s Extramarital Affair Does Not Constitute Cruelty Towards Wife: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday clarified that a husband’s extramarital affair, by itself, does not amount to cruelty towards his wife or abetment to suicide under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that unless it is proven that the deceased wife was deliberately harassed or subjected to violence, such an affair cannot be treated as a criminal offense.
This clarification was made during a case involving the death of a woman under suspicious circumstances at her in-laws' residence on March 18, 2024, within five years of marriage. The husband, who was charged under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty), 304-B (dowry death), and 306 (abetment to suicide), was granted bail by the court.
The prosecution alleged that the accused husband was involved in an extramarital relationship with a colleague. In support of this, they presented videos and chat records to the court. However, the bench led by Justice Sanjeev Narula reviewed the arguments and stated, “Even assuming such a relationship existed, unless it can be shown that it was conducted in a manner that harassed or tormented the deceased, it does not qualify as cruelty under Section 498A or abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.”
Furthermore, the court opined that an extramarital relationship is not adequate evidence to convict someone under Section 304-B of the IPC. It stated that cruelty or harassment must be connected to dowry demands or must constitute continuous mental harassment leading up to the death. The court noted that the accused had been in judicial custody since March 2024 and, given that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed, further detention served no purpose. The trial, the court observed, was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The court also remarked that there was no risk of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing. It underscored that bail is a right, not a form of punishment or restriction.
Meanwhile, the deceased woman’s family alleged that the accused physically abused her after she confronted him about his affair with a colleague. They also claimed that he pressured them to pay the EMIs for a car he had purchased, thereby subjecting her to domestic harassment. However, the court observed that neither the deceased nor her family had lodged any complaints regarding dowry harassment during her lifetime. This, the court held, weakened the immediacy and credibility of the dowry-related allegations.
In this context, the court ordered the release of the accused on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of the same amount.