Karnataka High Court (File Photo)
Karnataka High Court said that if any of the spouses after the marriage for a long time Physical relationship Refuse to make. So this under section 498A of IPC Cruelty does not fall in the category of Actually a wife filed a complaint against her husband in 2020. criminal cases was registered. In this, the wife accused the husband that he watches spiritual videos. For this reason, he never made physical relations with her after marriage. Not making physical relations in this way comes under the category of cruelty.
The Karnataka High Court accepted the petition filed by the husband and his parents. Simultaneously, a single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings filed against him by his wife. The wife lodged this complaint after 28 days of marriage. Let us tell you why the Karnataka High Court said that not having physical relations under Section 498A of the IPC is not cruelty.
Refusal to have physical relations is cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Karnataka High Court said in its decision that even if one of the husband or wife does not have a physical relationship, it is not cruelty under section 498 of the IPC. But under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, it comes under cruelty. Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the husband never intended to have physical relations with his wife. Which would undoubtedly amount to cruelty under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Please tell that the couple got married on 18 September 2019. The wife had stayed with her husband only for 28 days.
What did the High Court say in its decision?
According to a report in Live Law, the court said that cruelty means deliberate coercion. In this case, neither the complaint nor the summary charge sheet describes any fact or incident which amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. The only allegation the wife has made on the husband is that he always watches the videos of sister Shivani Brahma Kumari.
It has been said in these videos that love is never physical, it should be soul to soul meeting. On this basis, he never had any intention of having a physical relationship with his wife. As such, it does not amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC.
read this also- Why law against necrophilia is necessary, Karnataka HC told this reason
‘Law will be misused’
On making the husband’s parents accused of cruelty, the court said that as far as the mother-in-law and father-in-law are concerned, after looking into the complaint, it is found that there is no sign of cruelty by either of them.
Parents never lived with husband and wife. In such a situation, if further proceedings against him are allowed to continue, then it would be an abuse of the process of law. Section 494A of the IPC itself has a provision to punish the husband or relative, in whom any cruelty has been done to the woman.
