Judgment Deepak Gupta, J 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Sessions Trial No. 30/2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. The undisputed facts are that deceased Raj Kumari, daughter of complainant Geeta Devi, was married to accused Shingara Singh on 1.12.1999. Within four months of her marriage, she committed suicide by consuming poison on 23.2.2000. Geeta Devi, mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint with the police on 23.2.2000 itself in which she complained that her daughter Raj Kumari was married to the accused on 1.12.1999. She came to her parental home only once with her husband. 2-3 times Balbir Chand son of the complainant and brother of the deceased had gone to meet her and had brought her to Mehatpur to her parental house. About 10 days earlier, her daughter had made her last visit to her parental house. The complainant asked her daughter why Shingara Singh had not come and then Raj Kumari told her mother that Shingara Singh does not talk with her. He takes his meals alone. The daughter further stated that she and Shingara Singh would not be able to get long since Shingara Singh does not even talk to her. Complainant Geeta Devi advised her daughter to settle the matter and sent her back to her matrimonial home with Balbir Chand. Raj Kumari had complained about this fact to her maternal aunt Pushpa Rani also. On 23rd March, 2000, Joginder Singh came to house of the complainant at 10.00 a.m. and informed her that Raj Kumari is admitted in the hospital at Nangal. Thereafter, Geeta Devi and her husband and some other residents of village went to the hospital at Nangal and found that Raj Kumari had died due to consumption of poison. According to the complainant Raj Kumari had committed suicide because she was upset with the behaviour of Shingara Singh and action be taken against accused Shingara Singh. 3. The evidence led by the complainant is also of similar nature. PW-1 Geeta Devi complainant while appearing in Court has made a similar statement. PW-2 Pushpa Rani has also made a similar statement. 4. There is no doubt that the deceased committed suicide by consumption of poison. 3. The evidence led by the complainant is also of similar nature. PW-1 Geeta Devi complainant while appearing in Court has made a similar statement. PW-2 Pushpa Rani has also made a similar statement. 4. There is no doubt that the deceased committed suicide by consumption of poison. This is also a case where Section 113-A of the Evidence Act would be applicable and presumption can be raised against the accused if it is proved that he treated her with cruelty. The version of PW-1 to PW-3 is that Raj Kumari complained that she was unhappy because accused Shingara Singh was not talking to her or having meals with her. 5. PW-14 Balbir Chand has given a totally different version and he also stated that her sister had told him that the accused had beaten her and also broken the Television and furniture. This part of his statement is a definite improvement because he had not stated these facts when his statement was first recorded by the police. Even if the version of the prosecution witnesses is accepted all that is proved is that accused Shingara Singh was not talking with his wife or taking the meals prepared by her. 6. Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 7. Cruelty has been explained to mean 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 whether mental or physical. No doubt if the husband does not talk to his wife and does not take meals provided by her that may cause mental anxiety to the woman. However, that by itself cannot be said to be cruelty unless it is shown what led the husband not to talk to his wife or eat the meals prepared by her. 8. In a country like India where more often than not marriages are arranged and the husband and wife have no occasion to meet each other before marriage, they have to develop a relationship after marriage. Despite best efforts some marriages may not work out and they end up in divorce and separation. A newly married husband would not withdraw from the company of the wife except for some compelling reasons. If is for the prosecution to prove that the husband had no reason to withdraw from the company of the wife or that his withdrawal was for such an absurd reason that it amounts for cruelty. Merely because the husband has withdrawn from the company of the wife may not be cruelty in the context of Section 498-A of IPC unless other evidence is also led to prove the reasons behind such withdrawal. 9. In the present case the prosecution has led no evidence in this regard. Even the mother and aunt of the deceased have not stated that the deceased ever complained to them that her husband had withdrawn from her company because of certain reasons which may be totally ill-founded. 10. In view of these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.