Where Will Spouses Go To Satisfy Their Sexual Urges If Not To Each Other In A Morally Civilized Society: Allahabad High Court
Recently, while dealing with allegations regarding assault due to unmet demands of dowry, the Allahabad High Court observed that the allegation in the FIR against the husband arose from sexual incompatibility between the parties rather than any actual demand 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,” observed Justice Anish Kumar Gupta.
Factual Background
Applicant(husband) was married to opposite party no.3 (wife) in 2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. In the FIR against the applicant, it was alleged that though before the marriage there was no demand of dowry, after the marriage, the in-laws (parents of the applicant) started demanding dowry under the garb of customs and rituals. Once the wife refused, she was allegedly assaulted and abused by her in-laws and her husband. It was further alleged that under the influence of alcohol, the applicant had tried to kill his wife.
It was alleged that she was sent back to her parental home and the husband refused to take her along with him to Singapore without the dowry. Further allegations were made that when the wife went to live with him after some time, he used to torture her under the influence of alcohol and the entire salary of the wife was spent on meeting his demands. When the applicant attempted to kill his wife again, the FIR was lodged by his father-in-law and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was informed about the same.
The mediation between the parties had failed. The father-in-law wrote letters to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore and CEO of the applicant's company to freeze his passport and send him back to India. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed. The Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar vide the impugned order issued summons and took cognizance oof the case.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the allegations made in the FIR were vague and no specific date or time of any such incident as alleged was stated in the FIR. It was argued that no offences under Section 504, 506, 509 IPC were made out based on the allegations made in the FIR.
Per contra, counsel for the wife and her father argued that since the allegations were prima facie found to be proved, the chargesheet was issued and cognizance of the case had been taken.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that from the records it was clear that no specific allegations were made against the applicant in the FIR. However, the Court observed that the torture or assault, if any, by the husband was on account of the refusal of the wife to fulfil his sexual urges and not due to the non-fulfilment of dowry demands. It was observed that the allegation of demand of dowry was false and concocted when the real reason for the dispute was sexual incompatibility between the parties.
In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court had held that
“Mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.”
Further, the Court relied on Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and Another where the Apex Court has recently held that
“If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.”
Accordingly, the Court held that their cruelty under Section 498A IPC was not established and the allegations regarding the demand of dowry were false. The entire case against the applicant was quashed.
Case Title: Pranjal Shukla And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27067 of 2019]