Is Taunting a Wife’s Dark Complexion Enough to Constitute Cruelty?

The answer to this emotionally charged and legally significant question is nuanced, as clarified by the Bombay High Court in Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 1998, decided on 11 July 2025). In this case, the Court examined the sensitive issue of taunting a wife over her complexion within a matrimonial relationship and its legal implications under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now corresponding to Section 84 and Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The judgment provides clarity on how far the law extends in recognising such taunts as actionable cruelty.

Introduction

Cruelty in matrimonial relationships is a deeply subjective experience. However, when such cruelty becomes a legal concern—particularly under Section 498-A IPC—it demands objective assessment through the lens of statutes and judicial precedents. Among the many forms cruelty can take, verbal abuse and emotional humiliation are often difficult to quantify. This is especially true in cases involving societal prejudices like skin colour, where victims endure persistent taunting and degradation.

The question arises:

Is such taunting, especially if based on physical appearance like a woman’s dark complexion, legally sufficient to constitute cruelty?

The Bombay High Court addressed this very issue in the 2025 judgment involving the tragic suicide of a woman named Prema.

Factual Background

Allegations and Evidence

The prosecution examined five witnesses, including:

• PW-2 (Parubai Kale): Mother of the deceased.
• PW-3 (Chaturabai Kolekar): Relative of the deceased.
• PW-4 (Bhimrao Sul): Another close relative.

These witnesses testified that:

• The accused husband frequently taunted Prema about her dark complexion.
• He said he did not like her and expressed intentions to marry again.
• The father-in-law allegedly complained that Prema was not a good cook.
• Witnesses claimed that Prema had been beaten and emotionally distressed.

Importantly, there was no allegation of dowry demand, which is often the basis for cruelty under Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC.

Legal Framework

Section 498-A IPC

Section 498-A deals with “cruelty” inflicted by the husband or his relatives on a woman. Explanation (a) to the section defines cruelty to include:

“Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health…”

Explanation (b) relates specifically to harassment for dowry.

Section 306 IPC

Section 306 penalises abetment of suicide. For a conviction, it must be proved that:

1. The person committed suicide, and
2. The accused abetted such suicide.

Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act

This section allows a presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman if she commits suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty.

Court’s Analysis

The Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice S. M. Modak, carefully analysed the evidence and concluded:

• Taunting based on complexion, though socially reprehensible, does not amount to cruelty in law unless it is of a high degree.
• The harassment must be grave and compelling enough to drive a woman to take her own life. Normal domestic quarrels and occasional verbal abuse—even when humiliating—do not meet this threshold.
• The prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and the suicide. The reasons for suicide must be more than speculative; they must be clearly attributable to the accused’s conduct.

While Prema was certainly harassed and taunted, such conduct did not rise to the level of criminal cruelty under Section 498-A, nor could it support a conviction for abetment under Section 306.

Judgment

The High Court set aside the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the accused husband. The key findings were:

• No evidence of abetment: The prosecution did not prove that the harassment directly caused Prema’s suicide.
• No sufficient cruelty under 498-A: The taunts did not amount to wilful conduct of a high degree likely to drive Prema to suicide.
• The presumption under Section 113-A Evidence Act (now, Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) was inapplicable due to the lack of substantial cruelty.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice SM Modak stated:

“In all prosecution examined five witnesses. There are certain admitted documents. They are evidence and documents. With their assistance, I find that the conviction is not supported by the evidence. On record, though Prema was being taunted on account of her complexion, I do not think that it will fall within the explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Even conviction for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, because the prosecution could not prove the suicide being the outcome of the harassment.”

Critical Analysis

1. Legal v. Moral Wrong: The judgment underscores an important legal principle—not all moral wrongs are legal wrongs. Taunting someone for their skin colour is morally indefensible, but unless it meets specific legal criteria, it cannot constitute “cruelty” under IPC.
2. Threshold for Criminal Cruelty: The Court reinforced that domestic disputes must rise to a certain threshold of gravity before criminal liability attaches. This standard ensures that Section 498-A is not misused for minor matrimonial issues.
3. Complexion-Based Discrimination and Emotional Abuse: While the judgment may be legally correct, it opens a larger social debate: Should the law be more sensitive to psychological abuse and colourism? In Indian society, where an obsession with fair skin has deep roots, verbal humiliation over complexion can have lasting psychological impacts. The legal system may need to evolve to account for such forms of cruelty.

Need for Reform?

This case highlights a grey area in the law—emotional abuse that doesn’t visibly injure but corrodes a person’s sense of self-worth. Indian courts have repeatedly stressed that mere “trivial irritations” or “ordinary wear and tear” of marital life cannot attract criminal provisions. However, long-term psychological damage may remain unaddressed.

There is a growing need to:

• Recognise emotional and psychological cruelty in clearer legal terms.
• Introduce structured psychiatric and forensic assessments in matrimonial cruelty cases.
• Develop jurisprudence on colour-based discrimination within families.

Conclusion

To answer the question directly: Taunting a wife for her dark complexion, by itself, is not enough to constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC unless it is shown to be of such gravity that it drives her to suicide or causes grave harm.

The Bombay High Court’s 2025 judgment in Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar v. State of Maharashtra reinforces this view, setting aside the conviction due to lack of legal cruelty and absence of causal link to suicide. The judgment walks the tightrope between safeguarding individuals from criminal liability over domestic spats and acknowledging the real pain caused by emotional abuse.

Yet, the case also serves as a grim reminder of how cultural biases like colourism, when internalised and weaponised in intimate spaces like marriage, can push individuals to despair. The legal system may not yet be fully equipped to address such subtle forms of cruelty—but the path forward lies in recognising and confronting these invisible wounds with evolving legal standards.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams