Wife Refusing Anal Sex For Valid Reason Is Not Mental Cruelty To Husband: Uttarakhand HC
The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that a wife’s refusal to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature due to physical incapacity will not amount to mental cruelty.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by a husband challenging the impugned judgment of the family court directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and son under Section 125 of the CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani observed, “In view of it, this Court is of the view that for refusal to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature which was done by the respondent no.2 had valid reasons. The respondent no.2 was physically incapable to do so because she had injuries. Therefore, this refusal does not amount to mental cruelty.”
Advocate Aditya Singh appeared for the revisionist, while AGA M.A. Khan represented the respondents.
The wife alleged that her husband subjected her to harassment and torture in connection with dowry demands. She accused him of forcing her into anal intercourse, which led to severe health issues, and claimed that he showed obscene videos to their child sp the she would succumb to his demands.
Despite the husband denying the claims that his wife had pre-existing health issues, the Court noted, “The respondent no.2 has been examined and she has supported her case, the respondent no.2 has stated that she had injuries in her anus. Therefore, she was not agreeable for carnal intercourse against the order of nature, which the revisionist wanted to establish with her.”
“If the revisionist has reasons to deny the claim made by the respondent no.2 in her application under Section 125 of the Code, he could have also produced evidences. The revisionist could have produced such documents to show that, in fact, the respondent no.2 was having problems of constipation and piles before marriage,” the Court remarked.
The Court explained that the wife had valid reasons for refusing to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature due to physical incapability, and such refusal did not amount to mental cruelty.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that no interference is needed in the instant matter.”
The Bench upheld the decision of the family court that directed the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and son.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the applications.
Cause Title: K v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocate Aditya Singh
Respondents: AGA M.A. Khan; Advocates Vipul Painuli and Navneet Kaushik
