'Refusal to marry live-in partner not abetment of suicide', rules SC

The Supreme Court has held that refusing to marry a live-in partner, even if followed by the partner's death by suicide, does not automatically constitute abetment of suicide unless there is evidence of intentional instigation or knowledge that such refusal would lead to the act.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation on Monday while quashing criminal proceedings against six persons, including a woman's live-in partner, his parents, sister and others, who had been accused of abetting her suicide.

The court observed that the breakdown of a relationship or refusal to marry could not, by itself, establish the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It emphasised that criminal liability required material indicating that the accused had intentionally instigated or aided the deceased in taking her life.

The bench said individuals could respond differently to the breakdown of personal relationships and that every suicide following a separation could not be attributed to criminal instigation by the other partner.

Relationship and marriage dispute

The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered in 2022 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide and acts committed with common intention.

According to the prosecution, the deceased woman and the principal accused were childhood friends who subsequently entered into a consensual relationship. They had lived together at the man's residence for approximately three months.

The prosecution alleged that the man had initially proposed marriage, which was accepted by the woman and her family. However, the proposed marriage later encountered opposition from people associated with the accused.

It was alleged that a friend of the man made adverse remarks about the woman, while the prospective husband of the accused's sister opposed the marriage. The man's parents, sister and others were also accused of pressuring him to discontinue the relationship.

The woman subsequently informed her eldest sister during a telephone conversation that her partner had refused to marry her. She reportedly said she would end her life if the marriage did not take place the following day.

According to the prosecution, an altercation later occurred at the accused's residence, after which the woman locked herself in a room and died by suicide.

Lower courts rejected discharge

Following registration of the criminal case, the accused approached the trial court seeking discharge from the proceedings, contending that the allegations did not establish the offence of abetment of suicide.

The trial court rejected their application in December 2024, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

The accused subsequently challenged the decision before the Telangana High Court, which dismissed their revision petition in February 2026. The High Court held that the disputed factual questions required examination during a full trial.

Aggrieved by the decision, the accused approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish any act of instigation or intentional conduct that could attract criminal liability for the woman's death.

No evidence of instigation

The Supreme Court examined the allegations and concluded that, even if the prosecution's version was accepted in its entirety, the material did not disclose any conduct amounting to intentional instigation.

The bench found no basis to conclude that the accused had refused marriage with the intention of driving the woman to suicide. It also held that knowledge of such an eventuality could not be attributed to them merely because the relationship had ended.

The court observed that a person's emotional response to a failed relationship could not automatically translate into criminal responsibility for the other individual.

It further noted that the allegations against the accused and their relatives did not establish the necessary connection between their conduct and the woman's decision to take her life.

The bench consequently set aside the continuation of criminal proceedings against all six accused, holding that the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide had not been established.

The ruling reinforces the distinction between emotional distress arising from a failed personal relationship and criminal conduct amounting to abetment under the law. It makes clear that refusal to marry, without evidence of intentional instigation or other legally relevant conduct, is insufficient to sustain prosecution for abetment of suicide.