The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a case of cruelty filed by a wife against her husband, citing that the dispute primarily arose from the couple’s “sexual incompatibility” [Pranjal Shukla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another].
The woman had alleged that her husband made dowry demands, subjected her to torture, and forced her into unnatural sexual activities. However, the court, upon examining the First Information Report (FIR) and the woman’s statements, concluded that the conflict stemmed from the wife’s refusal to fulfill her husband’s sexual desires, rather than dowry-related issues.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta noted, “The torture or any assault, if any, is not due to any dowry demand but due to the refusal of the wife to meet her husband’s sexual urges.” He further commented, “It is apparent that the dispute centers around the sexual incompatibility of the couple, which led to the lodging of this FIR.”
The court remarked that in a marriage, spouses are naturally expected to seek physical intimacy from each other, and if denied, it raises questions about where they would turn to satisfy such desires in a morally upright society.
The couple, married in 2015, faced ongoing conflict. The wife had accused the husband and his family of demanding dowry and subjecting her to abuse. She also claimed that her husband had an alcohol addiction, pressured her into unnatural sexual acts, frequently watched pornography, roamed around naked, and masturbated in her presence. When she objected, she alleged that her husband attempted to strangle her.
She further stated that after her husband moved to Singapore, leaving her behind, she faced continued abuse when she joined him later. Based on her claims, a case was filed against the husband and his family under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The husband and his family challenged the allegations and sought to have the case quashed in the High Court. The court found the wife’s claims to be vague and general, noting the lack of specific injury or evidence supporting her accusations of cruelty or dowry demands.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts do not constitute an offense of cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. There is no specific allegation regarding any dowry demand,” the court observed, while dismissing the case.
Senior Advocate Vinay Saran, along with Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra, represented the husband. Advocate Bharat Singh Pal appeared for the wife, and Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Srivastava represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
