Sexual Favour’s Demand From Wife Is Not A “Cruelty”: Allahabad High Court

While definitely taking the most pragmatic, progressive, pertinent and persuasive step, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Pranjal Shukla and 2 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in Case No.: 27067 of 2019 and that is cited in the Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161342 and was reserved initially on 25.09.2024 and then finally pronounced on 03.10.2024 has quashed a case of cruelty that was lodged by a wife against her husband ruling explicitly that the dispute stemmed from the couple’s “sexual incompatibility” rather than dowry demands or physical abuse. It merits mentioning that the Court while quashing the case underscored the absence of concrete evidence to support the woman’s claims. In addition, the Court very rightly quipped that, “If a man would not demand sexual favour from his own wife and vice-versa, where will they go to satisfy their physical urges in a morally civilized society.”

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment which is authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Anish Kumar Gupta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2019 as well as the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2019 arising out of the Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 is the father-in-law of the applicant no. 1 herein. The daughter of the opposite party No. 2, namely Meesha Shukla/opposite party no.3, was married with the applicant no. 1/Pranjal Shukla, on 07.12.2015, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in the said marriage the opposite party no. 2 has spent a huge amount of money. After the marriage the in-laws of the daughter of the opposite party no 2, namely Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel Sharma, were not satisfied with the dowry and gifts given during the marriage. However, it has been categorically stated in the F.I.R. that prior to marriage there was no demand of money. However, when the marriage was settled, in the name of various customs, they demanded money. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that after the marriage the husband and the in-laws i.e., the applicants herein started making comments against her and said that her father has selected an IIT qualified groom, then, dowry ought to have been given. When the opposite party no. 3 told that her father is not having the capacity to meet all the demands, then, they started abusing and assaulting the daughter of the opposite party no. 2. His daughter was compelled too much that he had to give the articles worth Rs. 15 to 20 lakh and cash as well. Even after such payments and giving of the articles the applicant no. 1 was not satisfied and he used to misbehave and assault his daughter. When it was informed by the opposite party no.3 to her in-laws they also did not pay any attention to the same and told that money has to be brought in. It is also stated that the applicant no.1 used to drink and also used to watch porn films and used to insist for unnatural sex with the opposite party no.3 and used to be nude before her and also used to masturbate. When the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 used to object to the same, he did not pay any heed to her objections. The applicant no.1, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, tried to kill his daughter and strangled her, when it was objected by the daughter of the opposite party no. 2, then, the applicant no.1 left the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 with her in-laws and went alone to Singapore. When the opposite party no. 3 insisted to go to Singapore, then, the in-laws told her that unless all their demands are fulfilled, she will stay there at Mumbai only. When the opposite party no.2, did not fulfil their demands they have sent his daughter at Noida with the opposite party no. 2 and her husband started living at Singapore. When the daughter of the opposite party no.2 insisted to her husband to go to Singapore, he told her to bring money from her parents.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “After staying for about eight to nine months at Noida the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 went to Singapore on 27.07.2017, where she found the applicant no. 1 consuming the drugs and the alcohol. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that for about a year the applicant no. 1 was torturing his daughter at Singapore and due to his activities his daughter had to seek employment and entire salary was spent by her to fulfil the demands of the applicant no. 1. When the opposite party no. 3 told all those incidents to the opposite party no. 2, then, again for the second time the opposite party no.2 went to Singapore to convince the applicant no. 1 but both times he behaved inhumanly with them and abused and threatened to kill his daughter. On the basis of such written report, an F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 was registered on 23.7.2018. The matter was investigated by the police and after registration of the F.I.R. the intimation was also given to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with regard to the criminal case pending against the applicant no. 1.”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 5 that, “After registration of the F.I.R., the applicants have filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23151 of 2018 (Pranjal Shukla and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) before this Court and matter was referred to the Mediation Centre Vide order dated 24.08.2018 and interim protection was granted to the applicants. Subsequent thereto, the applicants have cooperated with investigation and ultimately after conclusion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the applicants herein. The mediation between the parties failed on 26.10.2018, due to non-cooperation of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. However, after failure of the mediation the opposite party no. 2 through his counsel sent a notice to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore requesting for freezing/hold of the passport of the applicant no. 1. Similarly, the opposite party no. 2 also sent the letters to the CEO of the company where the applicant no. 1 was employed, requesting for his return to India. In the meantime, the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 23151 of 2018 was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2019 and investigation was directed to continue.”

Further, the Bench then reveals in para 6 that, “Pursuant to the aforesaid ordered, the charge-sheet was filed on 20.04.2019. The learned Magistrate, has taken cognizance of the chargesheet filed against the applicants herein. Vide order dated 30.05.2019, without any application of mind in a mechanical manner, by a cryptic order against which the instant application has been filed by the applicants. While entertaining the instant application, the matter was again referred to the Mediation Centre vide order dated 15.07.2019 and as per the report of the Mediation Centre dated 18.03.2021, the mediation between the parties could not succeed. Thereupon, the pleadings were exchanged and the matter is finally heard.”

Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 10 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment propounding that, “Having heard the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that in the entire F.I.R. as well as in the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation no specific allegation has been made out against the applicants herein. Only general and vague allegations have been made out with regard to the demand and torture for demand of dowry. However, from the close scrutiny of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim, the torture or any assault, if any, is meted out not for any demand of dowry but on refusal of the opposite party no. 3 to fulfil the sexual urges of the applicant no. 1. So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, there is not a single allegation against them. Even in the F.I.R., it has been categorically stated that prior to marriage there was no demand of dowry by the applicants, at any stage. From the close scrutiny of the F.I.R. as well as statement of the witnesses it is apparent that the dispute is with regard to the sexual incompatibility of the parties for which the dispute was there between the parties and due to the said dispute the instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, making out the false and concocted allegations with regard to the demand of dowry, torture and harassment. 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. In any of the event, no injury has ever been sustained by the opposite party no.3. Thus, from the facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be an offence of cruelty in terms of section 498-A I.P.C. There is no averment with regard to any specific demand of dowry made by any specific person except the general and vague allegations.”

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then very rightly concludes by holding in para 15 that, “Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the instant F.I.R. is nothing but a concocted story of demand of dowry by making general and vague allegations against the applicants herein. Therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Achin Gupta (supra), as well as Kahkashan Kausar (supra), the instant application is allowed and the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2019 as well as the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2019 arising out of the Case Crime No. 83 of 2018 under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, are hereby quashed.”

In sum, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court very rightly junks the case that was lodged against a man accused of torturing wife for dowry. The Court found no merit in the serious charges that were levelled against him. It was held that there were no clear instances of injury or specific dowry demands made by any individual. So it was but natural that the charges and proceedings arising out of the case were thus very rightly quashed! No denying it!

Kindly, call our helpline at (+91) 98-712-712-05, or e-mail us at info@hellocounsel.com if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.