Factual Background 

In the instant matter at hand B. Nagamani v. State of Telangana Because the wife of Accused 1 committed suicidee Accused 3 (Petitioner) and the other accused was being prosecuted for the offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Section 306 of the IPC was being used to prosecute Accused 3 and the other three accused parties. Since the deceased had unlawful intercourse with Accused 4, the other accused parties—who were family members of Accused 1allegedly picked up the argument and reprimanded the deceased. Additionally, while the deceased continued her unlawful relationship with Accused 4, Accused 3, Accused 1, and Accused 2 were physically and mentally torturing her. Additionally, it was alleged that Accused 4 coerced the dead into divorcing Accused 1. As a result, the police filed a charge sheet claiming that the deceased was harassed under the aforementioned circumstances while she was dating Accused 4 and as a result, committed Suicide.

Court Verdict 

Justice K. Surender of the Telangana high court’s single-judge bench stated that it was understandable if a woman had no illicit relationships with other people and her husband or family members were making untrue accusations against her; however, in this case, the fact of illicit intimacy was undeniable, and it could not be claimed that requesting the deceased to stop having illicit relationships with Accused 4 would in any way constitute aiding and abetting under Section 107 of IPC. Accordingly, the Court determined that reprimanding a wife for engaging in unlawful contact would not in any way constitute encouraging the woman to commit suicide.

The Court stated that to qualify as cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC, it had to be proven that the victim had been subjected to willful bodily or mental abuse or that the husband and his family members had pressured her for more money. The court also found that there was no further evidence other than the proof that the deceased was being reprimanded for engaging in illegal relations. The Court concluded that the deceased’s current situation, in which she had inappropriate familiarity with Accused 4 and was reprimanded as a result, did not constitute cruelty as defined by Section 498-A of the IPC. The Court added that the petitioner had not been physically assaulted or engaged in such behaviour. 

According to the Court, a wife engaging in extramarital affairs would hurt the husband and family, both personally and in society. If the wife was engaging in unlawful contact with another person, the husband could not sit quietly. The Court expressed the opinion that it would be understandable if there was no illicit intimacy with another person and the husband or family members were making untrue accusations against a woman, but in the present case, the fact of illicit intimacy was undeniable, and it could not be claimed that requesting the deceased to stop having illicit intimacy with Accused 4 would in any way constitute aiding and abetting under Section 107 of the IPC.

According to the court, criticising a wife for engaging in illegal relations would not in any way constitute helping the woman commit suicide. As a result, the Court granted the petition and further annulled the petitioner’s legal actions.