Sending Draft Divorce Proposal Doesn’t Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently set aside a trial court's order that added charge of abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) against a man whose wife died by suicide shortly after receiving a draft divorce agreement.

The bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, delivering the judgment on May 22, 2025, allowed a petition filed by one Puthiya Purayil Shaji, challenging the Magistrate’s decision to frame an additional charge under Section 306 IPC in a case already proceeding under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband).

The case pertained to the tragic death of Shaji’s wife in 2005, just three months after their marriage. The woman’s mother, M.K. Padmini, had accused Shaji and others of cruelty and abetment to suicide after her daughter jumped into a well. An FIR was initially registered for both 498A and 306 IPC, but the final police report only invoked Section 498A.

Years into the trial, after eleven witnesses had been examined, the prosecution moved an application under Section 216 CrPC seeking to add the charge of abetment of suicide. The trial court agreed, finding that evidence from family members showed the deceased was devastated upon receiving a draft divorce agreement from the accused’s side.

However, the high court took a stricter view. It emphasized that the law demands more than emotional distress to prove abetment. "They did not state that the petitioner played any active role in either instigating or intentionally aiding the commission of suicide...The prosecution has no case that the petitioner, through accused No.3 in Annexure A1 complaint, handed over the Annexure A2 draft agreement with the intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide," the court held.

Referring to multiple Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that for a charge under Section 306 to stand, there must be a clear and proximate act of instigation or aiding the suicide. “A mere allegation of humiliation, harassment or threat unaccompanied by any incitement or instigation is not at all sufficient to attract the offence,” the court noted.

The judgment further clarified that while Section 216 CrPC grants courts wide powers to alter or add charges, such powers must be exercised based on substantive material evidence. Since the prosecution’s own witnesses did not allege any instigation or intent on the part of the petitioner, the addition of Section 306 IPC was found unwarranted.

The high court also pointed out that the initial investigating officer had rightly excluded the abetment charge after reviewing the case diary.

Therefore, setting aside the Magistrate’s order, the high court ruled that the criminal trial shall proceed only under Section 498A IPC.

Case Title: Puthiya Purayil Shaji vs State of Kerala and Another

Download judgment here