If Spouses Can't Seek Sexual Favours From Each Other, Where Will They Satisfy Sexual Urges?: Allahabad HC While Quashing Cruelty Case Against Husband

The Allahabad High Court has quashed a case of cruelty filed by a woman against her husband, ruling that the dispute stemmed from the couple's "sexual incompatibility" rather than dowry demands or physical abuse.

The Single-Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta concluded that the allegations of torture were related to the refusal of one party to satisfy the other's sexual urges, not due to demands for dowry.

"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. 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 avernment with regard to any specific demand of dowry made by any specific person except the general and vague allegations," the Court observed.

The case was originally filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The woman had alleged that her husband and in-laws abused and assaulted her for failing to meet their dowry demands. She further accused her husband of being addicted to alcohol, demanding unnatural sex, watching pornography, and engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior, including masturbating in her presence.

According to the wife, her husband attempted to strangle her when she objected to his actions. She also claimed that after the husband left for Singapore, she was mistreated by her in-laws. Upon joining him in Singapore after eight months, the alleged abuse continued.

The Court, however, found the allegations to be vague and lacking in specificity, particularly with regard to the dowry demands. The Court stated that there were no clear instances of injury or specific dowry demands made by any individual. As a result, the Court ruled that the complaint did not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

"It is apparent that the dispute is with regard to the sexual incompatibility of the parties," the Court observed, adding that this issue appeared to be the root cause of the marital discord.

The Court's quashed the case against the husband and his family, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence to support the woman's claims.

"...in the considered opinion of this Court the instant F.I.R. is nothing but a concocted story of demand of dowry by making general and vague allegations against the applicants herein. Therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Achin Gupta (supra), as well as Kahkashan Kausar (supra), the instant application is allowed and the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2019 as well as the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2019 arising out of the Case Crime No. 8 2018 under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, are hereby quashed," the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: ABC And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:161342]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra

Opposite Party: Advocates Bharat Singh Pal, Prabhat Tripathi (GA)

Click here to read/download the Order