Allahabad High Court Dismisses Cruelty Case: Addresses Issue of Sexual Intimacy in Marriage

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Cruelty Case: Addresses Issue of Sexual Intimacy in Marriage

Which other source can the spouses turn to in the satisfaction of their sexual needs other than satisfying the same with their partners? Allahabad High Court dismisses cruelty case

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a case of cruelty recently filed by a wife against her husband after the court stated that the disagreement that spurred the case stemmed from what the court deemed as ‘incompatibility of sexual relations within the marriage’ [Pranjal Shukla and Others v. Between State of Uttar Pradesh and Another].

rejecting the woman’s case that the man demanded dowry, tortured her and forced her to indulge in unnatural sex, the Court stated that

“But from the reading of the F.I.R. and the statement of the victim and from every angle, it is clear that the torture or any physical assault, if at all, is given not for dowry demand but for refusal on the part of the opposite party no. 3 to satisfy the cupid mind of the applicant no. 1.”

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta went on to say,

“…there cannot be any doubt that the controversy is about sexual dissimilarities for which the controversy was there between the said parties and because of the said controversy the present F.I.R. has been registered…”)
The two got married in 2015; thereafter, the man and his family demanded a dowry from the woman. She claimed that in case of compliance with the dowry demands, she was harassed, abused and even assaulted.

The wife also testified that the husband was an alcoholic and forced her into unnatural acts. She also accused him of watching porn films and used to move around with the naked part of his body visible to her to masturbate. Anytime she tried to reject such acts, her husband had reportedly attempted to strangulate her.

He said that she cooked for her husband and went to Singapore while she was left with her in-laws. When she went to Singapore after eight months, she again became tortured by her husband.

The husband and his family members were booked under Section 498A, read with Section 34 of IPC for domestic violence, Section 323 for causing hurt, Section 504 for intentionally insulting with a purpose to provoking breach of peace, Section 506 for criminal intimidation, and Section 509 for outraging the modesty of a woman besides under Section 3 and section 4 of dowry prohibition act.

Frustrated, the husband and in-laws have filed the present quashing plea before the High Court.

As much as the Court recognized the torture case by the wife against her husband and in-laws it thought that they were exaggerated and had been reported in an outline manner.

; Altogether and in any of the event, no such injury has ever been suffered by the opposite party no.3. Therefore, from the facts of the case into the consideration of which this Court has gone, it will in no way be possible to say that it is an offence of cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court also noted that there is no evidence regarding any specific demand of dowry from a specific person, although there are general and vague allegations,” the Court said while setting aside the case.

The Senior Advocate Vinay Saran represented the husband with Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra.

Counsel in person Advocate Bharat Singh Pal represented the wife.

The Extra Advocate General Pankaj Srivastava made Further Appearances as Jr Advocate of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Read the Full judgment here-