Jahanvi Agarwal
Recently the Karnataka High Court held that if the husband denied having a physical relationship, then it will amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but not under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench consisted of Justice M Nagaprasanna who made this observation while quashing the proceedings against a man and his parents, against whom a criminal case was lodged in 2020 by the wife.
The Bench stated that:
“The only allegation is that, he (husband) is a follower of a spiritual order, always watches videos of one-woman monk of the order, gets inspired by watching the videos and always says that love is never about getting physical, it should be soul to soul. On this score, he never intended to have physical relationship with his wife. This would amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not cruelty as is defined under Section 498A of IPC,”
In the Instant case, the petitioner and his wife were solemnized on 18th December 2019. However, with time their marriage got sour. The petitioner’s wife who only stayed in the matrimonial home for 28 days, filed a complaint under section 498A of IPC against the petitioner and his parents in JP Nagar police station on 5th February 2020.
Not only this but the wife also filed a complaint under section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the family court requesting the annulment of marriage on the ground of cruelty as the marriage was not consummated.
The petitioner and his parents were charged by the police under section 4 of the Dowry Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 as well as section 4 of the IPC.
The parents disputed this and stated that they were drawn into the web of crime for no obvious reason and had nothing to do with this issue. The husband argued that none of the charges would constitute an offense that would be criminal under Section 498A.
The woman stated that her husband’s parents planned to marry her to their son. She insisted that because her spouse had never shown a desire in having a physical relationship with her, she was forced to seek the annulment of their marriage on the ground of cruelty.
She continued to state that even though the marriage had been declared null and void in accordance with a family court ruling of November 16, 2022, she would still prosecute the current legal action because the dowry demand amounted to cruelty.
The judge stated, after reviewing the opposing arguments and documents presented to the court, that he was of the opinion that the averment that the wife was aware of the husband’s attitude.
The Judge observed that:
“Even then, she gets married due to the force of elders of the family, thinking that the husband would become alright and stays for 28 days in the matrimonial house. In those 28 days, neither the complaint nor the summary chargesheet narrates any factum/incident that would become an ingredient of section 498A of IPC,”
He noted that the plaintiff had received a divorce decision on the basis of non-consummation of marriage, which the Hindu Marriage Act defines as cruelty.
He noted that the plaintiff had received a divorce decision on the basis of non-consummation of marriage, which the Hindu Marriage Act defines as cruelty.
However, the judge noted that on the same grounds, criminal procedures cannot be allowed to proceed. The judge continued, “Finding no ingredient even against the husband, the proceedings if permitted to proceed, would degenerate into harassment, become an abuse of the legal process, and ultimately result in a miscarriage of justice.”