Husband's Extramarital Affair Not Cruelty, Abetment Of Suicide: Delhi High Court

NDTV

13-05-2025

New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said a man's extramarital affair does not amount to cruelty or abetment of suicide unless shown it harassed or tormented the wife.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said an extramarital relationship was not a ground to implicate the husband for dowry death in the absence of a nexus between the alleged relationship and dowry demand.
The court, as a result, granted bail to a man, who was arrested in a case under Sections 498A (cruelty)/304-B (dowry death) aside from Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of IPC, following the unnatural death of his wife in her matrimonial home on March 18, 2024, within nearly five years of marriage.
"The prosecution relies on materials to suggest that the applicant was involved in an extramarital relationship with a woman. Certain videos and chat records have been cited in support. However, even assuming such a relationship existed, the law is settled that an extramarital affair, per se, does not amount to not, cruelty under Section 498A IPC or abetment under Section 306 IPC, unless it is shown that the relationship was pursued in a manner calculated to harass or torment the deceased," the court held.
The verdict went on, "An extramarital relationship cannot be a ground to implicate the accused under Section 304B IPC. The Court held that harassment or cruelty should be linked to dowry demands or sustained mental cruelty that occurred 'soon before the death'." The man had been in custody since March 2024, and the court noted his continued incarceration would serve no purpose. The court further observed a chargesheet was filed after conclusion of investigation and the trial was not likely to conclude in near future.
There was no risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice and it was well-established that the object of granting bail was neither punitive nor preventative, it added.
The court directed his release on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
The woman's family alleged the husband had an affair with his colleague and when confronted, he physically abused her.
The man was further accused of regularly subjecting his wife to domestic violence and pressurising her to secure EMI payments from her family for a car he had purchased.
The court observed no such complaint was made by the woman or her family when she alive and therefore prima facie diluting the immediacy and plausibility of the dowry-related harassment claim.