Marriage Doesn't Entitle Men To Unquestioned Authority Over Wife, Woman's Endurance Shouldn't Be Mistaken For Consent: Madras High Court

While doing so, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that men must understand that marriage does not give them unquestioned authority over the wife and that the comfort, safety and dignity of their wives is not a secondary duty but an obligation of the marital bond.

“It is high time that men in this land unlearn this inherited dogma that marriage entitles them to unquestioned authority and begin to understand that the comfort, safety, needs, and dignity of their wives are not secondary duties but core obligations of the marital bond, especially in their twilight years,” the court said.

The court also observed that the Indian marriage system must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect. The court added that the endurance of women, especially the elderly, should not be seen as consent or silent acceptance.

“The message that emanates from this judgment must resonate beyond the confines of the courtroom: that the endurance of women, particularly elderly wives, should no longer be mistaken for consent, nor their silence for acceptance. The Indian marriage system, while rooted in noble ideals, must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman against her husband's acquittal in a case under Section 498A IPC. The court remarked that the woman was emblematic of a generation of women who felt that it was their duty to endure the mental and emotional cruelty. The court remarked that such endurance had allowed generations of men to exercise control, dominance and neglect under the garb of patriarchal privilege.

“The victim in this case, now an octogenarian, is emblematic of that generation of Indian women who bore persistent mental and emotional cruelty with stoic silence, hoping that endurance was their virtue and tolerance their duty. Such misplaced endurance, often glorified in societal narratives, has emboldened generations of men to exercise control, dominance, and neglect under the garb of patriarchal privilege,” the court remarked.

The woman had submitted that during the marital life, the husband developed illicit relationship within the family and when she protested, he assaulted and harassed her and also threatened to falsely implicate her and obtain divorce. The women submitted that the husband had cut down flower bearing plants used for pooja, threw deity pictures, prevented phone access and attendance at family functions, and denied food and maintenance, causing mental and physical cruelty.

The woman also submitted that the husband and his family isolated her by constructing a separate kitchen. It was also submitted that the husband had even attempted to stab her but she escaped by locking herself in a room. Later, the husband's family even threatened to poison her food.

The woman then filed a complaint and an offence was registered for offences under Section 498A and Section 506 (ii) of the IPC. The trial court convicted the husband for offence under Section 498 A. The first appellate court, however, reversed the acquittal on the ground that there was no independent eyewitness, only hearsay evidence, no seizure of material objects, and that there was no dowry demand.

The court opined that the first appellate court's order was vitiated by misdirection in law and without consideration of material evidence. The court observed that in domestic cruelty cases, there would rarely be independent eyewitnesses, as held by the Supreme Court in many previous cases.

The court also observed that the appellate court had wrongly assumed that the absence of dowry forecloses the offence under Section 498A. The court noted that cruelty was sustained on mental cruelty, isolation in the form of a separate kitchen, denial of food and maintenance, desecration of religious objects, blocking communication and social participation etc. The court added that the trial court had rightly convicted the husband by evaluating the totality of the conduct in inflicting ongoing mental cruelty.

Thus, noting that the ingredients of Section 498A were attracted against the husband, they set aside the order of acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The court thus sentenced the man to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. D. Saravanan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthikumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side), Mr. N. Dilip Kumar

Case Title: I v. DM

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

Case No: CRL A(MD) No.17 of 2018