Marriage Cannot Be a License to Humiliate: Madras High Court Restores Conviction of Octogenarian Husband for Cruelty Under Section 498-A IPC

“Age cannot sanctify cruelty. When conduct amounts to persistent deprivation, isolation, and humiliation, it crosses from personal discord to criminal liability” —  In a powerful and precedent-setting verdict that centres the dignity of elderly women within matrimonial homes, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) delivered a common judgment restoring the conviction of an 86-year-old husband under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting his 78-year-old wife to mental and economic cruelty. Justice L. Victoria Gowri delivered the verdict in CRL A(MD) No.17 of 2018, simultaneously dismissing three criminal revision petitions filed by the husband challenging the maintenance of ₹20,000 per month awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court forcefully observed that "endurance should not be mistaken for consent, nor silence for acceptance", making it clear that domestic cruelty, especially when inflicted over decades, cannot be permitted to remain cloaked in the veil of familial privacy or tradition.

"When Isolation Becomes Institutional, the Law Must Intervene": High Court Rejects Acquittal Based on Misreading of Evidence and Law

Delivering a reasoned and socially conscious judgment, the High Court set aside the appellate acquittal granted by the Sessions Court in 2017 and restored the 2016 conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. The Trial Court had earlier sentenced the husband to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, finding him guilty under Section 498-A IPC, but acquitted him under Section 506(ii) IPC for lack of corroborative evidence on threats. This conviction was later reversed by the First Appellate Court, which was now found to have misdirected itself in law.

The Court held that the appellate judgment had failed to appreciate the legal standard of cruelty, misapplied the rule of corroboration, and ignored key police records that independently corroborated the wife's claims.

“Mental Cruelty Is Not Mere Marital Incompatibility — It Is the Systematic Erosion of Dignity”: Court Finds Grave Abuse of Octogenarian Wife

Background of the Case

The parties had been married since 1965 and lived in a joint family setup. The wife, Indira, alleged that her husband Danaseelan Mudaliyar, during their later years, had begun an illicit relationship with a younger female relative (his daughter-in-law), which led to humiliation, emotional isolation, denial of food, desecration of religious objects, and repeated coercion to extract money from her relatives.

She further alleged that in February 2007, she was separated by being forced to cook in a different kitchen, and on 20 February 2007, the husband advanced towards her with a knife while she was rescued only by locking herself in a room. A formal complaint followed, leading to the filing of charges under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) IPC against the husband, son, and daughter-in-law.

The Trial Court, after full evidence, convicted only the husband under Section 498-A IPC, acquitting the other accused and granting benefit of doubt regarding the knife and poison threats. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this conviction, citing lack of corroborative, independent eyewitnesses and an absence of direct evidence.

“In Domestic Cruelty, the Home Itself is the Scene of Crime”: High Court Declares Sole Testimony of Wife Sufficient in Proving Section 498-A IPC

Legal Issues and Observations

The High Court sharply criticised the appellate court’s insistence on independent witnesses, observing:

“The insistence on independent eyewitnesses in cases of domestic cruelty is misplaced. Cruelty often unfolds in the shadows of matrimonial privacy. The consistent, credible testimony of the wife, supported by circumstantial corroboration, suffices under law.”

Justice Gowri held that the evidence of P.W.1 (the wife), coupled with police-recorded compromise terms acknowledging household control, communication denial, and financial deprivation, firmly established mental cruelty under Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC. The Court clarified that:

“Cruelty does not require physical scars. It may manifest in the silent sufferings of emotional trauma, forced dependence, and daily indignities — all of which were present in this case.”

The Court stressed that the absence of a dowry demand was irrelevant, as the law under Section 498-A IPC is not confined to harassment for dowry but encompasses “any wilful conduct likely to cause grave mental or physical injury”.

“Economic Abuse is Domestic Violence—Not a Mere Marital Dispute”: Maintenance of ₹20,000 Upheld After 18 Years of Neglect

Court Validates Long-Term Neglect as a “Continuing Offence” Under D.V. Act

In the connected criminal revision cases filed by the husband challenging the maintenance awarded under the D.V. Act, the Court firmly rejected all contentions regarding limitation, voluntary separation, and lack of financial means, holding that:

“Deprivation of maintenance is a continuing wrong. When a woman is denied support and sustenance, the wrong renews each day. The plea of limitation is misconceived.”

An Advocate Commissioner’s Report, appointed by the Court, found that the husband continued to enjoy over ₹1.1 lakh in monthly rental income from a lodge, shops, and leased properties, most of which were ancestral and managed by the couple’s son. The Court held:

“The husband’s claim of financial incapacity is belied by the hard data. Even if assets are held in the son's name, the benefits are enjoyed jointly. A man cannot disown income while residing in the luxury it provides.”

The Court affirmed the maintenance of ₹20,000 per month awarded by the lower court, holding it to be realistic, fair, and consistent with the standard of living during the marriage, citing Rajnesh v. Neha and Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury.

“Dignity in Old Age Is a Legal Right, Not a Favour”: Court Reaffirms Woman’s Status as ‘Aggrieved Person’

The Court forcefully rejected the husband's argument that the wife could not claim the status of “aggrieved person” under the D.V. Act because she was living separately without direct threats. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Bhattacharjee, the Court held:

“Economic and emotional neglect by a husband who continues to control wealth while denying support constitutes domestic violence. The D.V. Act protects such women — especially when they are elderly, dependent, and without any other support system.”

Noting that the wife sold ancestral property recently to fund her medical needs and was dependent on her brother, the Court affirmed her entitlement to maintenance.

“Cruelty Has No Expiry Date, and Dignity Has No Age Limit”: High Court's Epilogue Sends a Message of Accountability

In concluding remarks, the Court delivered a stirring message of social justice and gender sensitivity, stating:

“This conviction is not viewed through the lens of age, but through the prism of accountability. When cruelty corrodes the sanctity of marriage, the law must intervene — not to destroy the institution, but to cleanse it.”

Justice Gowri observed that the verdict was not an act of retribution but a recognition of the right to dignity, and a tribute to elderly women who seek not revenge, but acknowledgment of their suffering.

The Court also clarified that the son, who had not been impleaded in the revision petitions but was involved in managing family assets, was suo motu impleaded and directed to share liability in maintenance.

The Criminal Appeal filed by the wife was allowed, the conviction of the husband under Section 498-A IPC was restored, and the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with ₹5,000 fine was affirmed. The husband was directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The three Criminal Revision Petitions challenging maintenance were dismissed, and the monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 was upheld, with arrears to be cleared within three months.

“Respect within marriage is ageless. Protection of dignity — especially that of elderly women — is the truest reflection of a civilized society.”

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025