E-Paper
‘Old age can’t sanctify cruelty’, rules Madras HC on domestic violence case
Old age cannot sanctify cruelty, the Madras high court said while restoring conviction of an octogenarian husband for subjecting his wife, who is now in her 80s, to prolonged mental and economic cruelty
The Madras high court has restored the conviction of an octogenarian husband for subjecting his wife, who is now in her 80s, to prolonged mental and economic cruelty, saying that old age “cannot sanctify cruelty”.
Justice L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench restored the conviction of the husband under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and his imprisonment for six months.
In an order passed on October 31, justice Gowri held that acts such as isolating the wife, denying her food, obstructing her religious practices, and coercing her to bring money from her relatives amounted to “grave mental cruelty”.
The judge set aside the earlier acquittal of the man by an appellate court, and reinstated the trial court’s sentence of six-month simple imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine.
Upholding a related maintenance order of ₹20,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act, justice Gowri observed: “The conviction of an octogenarian husband in this case is not an act of vengeance but an assertion of the principle that age cannot sanctify cruelty, and that no marital bond can justify indignity.”
“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,” it added.
It added: “Marriage cannot justify indignity..Respect within marriage is ageless, and protection of the dignity of elderly women is the truest reflection of a civilised society.”
The court passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by one Indiara, the wife, challenging the husband’s acquittal in the case under Section 498 A of IPC for the charge of domestic violence.
Her counsel told the court that Indira and her husband, one Dhanaseelan Mudaliyar, had been embroiled in a long-running marital dispute. The couple had married in 1965 and was living together for decades before their relationship broke down. Indira accused her husband of cruelty. She claimed he had an illicit relationship outside of their marriage, denied her food, isolated her in a separate kitchen, that he cut down plants she used for worship, coerced her to bring money from relatives, and prevented her from communicating with family or attending social functions.
In 2016, a trial court found Dhanaseelan guilty under Section 498-A. He was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and fined ₹5,000. The following year, a sessions court acquitted him, holding that there was no independent corroboration of Indira’s testimony.
While hearing Indira’s appeal, justice Gowri set aside the acquittal, calling the lower court’s reasoning “a misdirection in law.”
Domestic cruelty, justice Gowri said, rarely occurs in public or before independent witnesses.
The wife’s consistent and credible testimony, corroborated by a police-recorded compromise showing that she had been deprived of food, communication and financial support, was sufficient to prove sustained mental cruelty, the High Court said.
“This Court cannot be a mute spectator to the continuing subjugation of elderly women who, after decades of service, sacrifice and loyalty, are left to face cruelty and abandonment within their own homes,” the Court said.
The high court also dismissed three connected criminal revision petitions filed by Dhanaseelan challenging orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It upheld the award of ₹20,000 per month in maintenance, finding that the husband had steady rental and business income of about ₹1.1 lakh a month and that economic neglect constitutes continuing domestic violence.
