Husband's Inability To Develop Sexual Relations With Wife Is Generally Not Known To Even Nearest Relatives: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two maternal uncles and aunts of a man at the behest of his wife, on the ground that they got him married to the complainant woman, despite knowing that he could not develop physical relations with any woman.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil said whether a husband suffers from such a medical condition or not, is usually known to himself and generally such information is not known even to the nearest relatives.

"We are of the view that whether the husband was unable to develop physical relations and whether he has a deficiency by which he is unable to cohabit, is a condition which normally is known to the person himself. This information does not travel beyond the home. Sometimes, nearest relatives are also unable to know or notice," the bench observed in the order passed on January 3.

The judges were hearing a plea filed by a man, his parents, brother and maternal uncles and aunts, all seeking to quash the FIR lodged against them under provisions of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The allegation as regards both the uncles and aunts was that they were well aware of the fact that their nephew was unable to cohabit with any wife and despite that they got him married with the complainant woman. She claimed that the husband was unable to develop physical relations with her.

The judges noted that the maternal uncles and aunts of the man in the instant case, did not force or coerce the complainant to get married to him.

"The contention is that they were keen that the marriage be solemnised between the complainant and the their nephew," the judges noted.

Therefore, the bench opined that no case is made out against uncles and the aunts in the case.

As regards the husband, his brother and their parents are concerned, the judges took into account the fact that serious allegations of dowry demand, physical torture and mental torture, were made against them.

The bench, therefore, refused to quash the FIR as regards the husband and his parents and brother. However, the judges, quashed the FIR as against the two maternal uncles and aunties observing that they had no knowledge of the condition of the husband and that they lived separately in Solapur while the husband and his family lived in Solapur City.

Appearance:

Advocate VR Shinde appeared for the Applicants.

Additional Public Prosecutor PN Dabholkar represented the State.

Advocates Vishwanath Patil, Nidhi Chauhan and Akshay Naidu represented the Complainant.

Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1351 of 2023)

Click Here To Read/Download Order