Cruelty, as defined in the Explanation to S. 498-A, I. P. C., must be of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. In the present case, the alleged cruelty was not of such a nature.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS Balram and Maharani have been convicted under Ss. 306 and 498-A, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and three years respectively. They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences under Ss. 306 and 498-A, I. P. C.

( 2 ) DECEASED Kalanbai was second wife of appellant Balram. This marriage took place five years before the death of Kalanbai. She committed suicide by setting her ablaze on 26-3-1987 in the house of her husband. Appellant Maharani is his mother. Rambatibai (P. W. 10) is first wife of appellant Balram. She has remarried Kaluram and she is living with him. These facts are not in dispute.

( 3 ) THIS case was referred to the Division Bench on a question of law. That was whether S. 113-A of the Evidence Act is attracted where the wife who has committed suicide was not "legally married". It has been answered in the affirmative.

( 4 ) THE only point which has been raised in this appeal is whether the appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Kalanbai. On this point there is evidence of Rajaram (P. W. 2), brother of the deceased and his wife Kusamrani (P. W. 11 ). The testimony of these two witnesses has been carefully scrutinized. Rajaram (P. W. 2) has deposed in para 6 that his sister was comfortable in the house of her husband for first 3-4 years. After that she complained when she came to his house that her husband and her mother-in-law were notproviding her food and they were quarrelling with her. This witness has further stated that accused Balram was not demanding any dowry. He went to the house of his sister to bring her two years ago and then her husband had refused to send her. At that time, his sister demanded ornaments from her mother-in-law and she was given a slap by her on her head. She lived with her mother for about two years. Then her husband-appellant Balram came to take her. There was a compromise between the two and his sister went with her husband to her matrimonial home. At that time her husband said that there would be no harassment to his wife. After that his sister came to his place twice. But she was not sent by her husband when he went to take her for the third time. She died two months after that.

( 5 ) RAJARAM (P. W. 2) has further stated in cross-examination that appellant Balram is a poor man. He is doing the work of labourer. He gets casual works. In para 6 he has stated that the reason for the quarrel was that there was shortage of food. Kusambai (P. W. 11) is wife of Rajaram (P. W. 2 ). She has deposed that her Nanad Kalanbai used to tell her that the appellants are not providing her proper food and she was not permitted to wear her ornaments when she used to come to the place of her mother. She was also complaining that she was not getting proper clothes. In cross-examination she has admitted that appellant Balram was sticken with poverty. He was working as a labourer. Kusamrani (P. W. 11) does not say that Kalanbai had never complained that she was beaten by her husband or by her mother-in-law.

( 6 ) ON a careful consideration of the evidence of the two witnesses mentioned above it is found that deceased Kalanbai was not getting proper food and clothing because her husband was very poor. The word "cruelty" has been defined in the Explanation to S. 498-A, I. P. C. , Clause (a) of this Explanation provides that 'cruelty' means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. Clause (b) to this Explanation is not attracted in the present case as it does not relate to demand of dowry. A reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty and the suicide in order to establish the charge of abetment. The cruelty should be of sufficient gravity which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal, AIR 1994 SC 1418 : (1994 Cri LJ 2104) it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Court should be extremely careful in