Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a notable judgment, the Allahabad High Court recently remarked upon marital obligations and sexual compatibility between spouses. The court observed, "If a man would not demand sexual favour from his own wife and vice-versa, where will they go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society?"

The bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta was dealing with an application filed under Section 482 CrPC by a man to quash the proceedings in a case lodged by his father-in-law under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506, 509 of the IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against him and his family members. The FIR in the case was lodged following allegations that the man had mistreated his wife, both physically and emotionally. These included claims of coercion for unnatural sexual acts and demands for dowry.

During the proceedings, the high court scrutinized the statements and evidence presented. It found that the primary issues between the husband and wife did not revolve around dowry but were more related to sexual incompatibility. The wife had alleged that her husband’s behavior, particularly under the influence of alcohol and drugs, was abusive, including insistence on unnatural sex. However, the court found no specific allegations of dowry demands prior to or during the marriage, nor any concrete incidents supporting the dowry harassment claims.

Court further observed that the case appeared to be more about the couple’s inability to reconcile their marital and sexual differences, rather than a genuine dowry-related dispute.

Court emphasized that sexual relations between spouses are a natural part of marriage, and refusal or dissatisfaction in this regard should not be misconstrued as criminal behavior unless there is substantial evidence of cruelty or harassment.

Additionally, court noted that while the wife had raised allegations of physical abuse linked to the refusal of sexual demands, there was no record of any injuries or medical reports substantiating these claims.

As a result, court ruled that the allegations were general and vague, lacking the specificity required to prosecute the husband under Section 498-A of the IPC, which pertains to cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives.

Court opined that due to the dispute over sexual incompatibility, the FIR was lodged by the wife's father levelling false and concocted allegations with regard to the demand of dowry, torture and harassment.

Court pointed out the growing trend of false or exaggerated claims in matrimonial disputes, where vague allegations are often made to involve multiple family members.

In this context, the court urged caution in proceeding with criminal trials based solely on general allegations, especially when such disputes stem from personal differences rather than clear instances of cruelty or dowry harassment.

Finding the FIR in the present case nothing but a concocted story of demand of dowry by making general and vague allegations against the husband and his family, court allowed the application and quashed the case against them. 

Case Title: Pranjal Shukla And 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another