The torture or any assault, if any, is meted out not for any demand of dowry but on refusal of the wife to fulfil the sexual urges of the husband, the Court said.
The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a cruelty case filed by a wife against her husband, citing “sexual incompatibility” as the root of the conflict [Pranjal Shukla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another].
While dismissing the woman’s allegations of dowry demands, torture, and unnatural sexual acts by her husband, the Court observed
“However, from the close scrutiny of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim, the torture or any assault, if any, is meted out not for any demand of dowry but on refusal of the opposite party no. 3 to fulfil the sexual urges of the applicant no. 1.”
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta went on to state,
“…it is apparent that the dispute is with regard to the sexual incompatibility of the parties for which the dispute was there between the parties and due to the said dispute the instant F.I.R. has been lodged…”
If man would not demand sexual favour from his own wife and vice-versa, where they will go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society.
The couple married in 2015, after which the wife alleged that her husband and his family began demanding dowry. She claimed that when these demands were not fulfilled, she faced abuse and physical violence. The wife also accused her husband of alcohol addiction and forcing her into unnatural sexual acts. She further alleged that he frequently watched pornography, walked around naked in her presence, and masturbated. When she objected to his behavior, he allegedly tried to strangle her.
She stated that her husband relocated to Singapore, leaving her with his family. After eight months, when she joined him in Singapore, he allegedly continued to mistreat her.
A case was filed against the husband and his family under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In response, the husband and his family petitioned the High Court to have the case dismissed. The Court noted that the wife’s allegations of mistreatment were vague and lacked specific details.
“In any of the event, no injury has ever been sustained by the opposite party no.3. Thus, from the facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be an offence of cruelty in terms of section 498-A I.P.C. There is no averment with regard to any specific demand of dowry made by any specific person except the general and vague allegations,” the Court observed while quashing the case.
