Karnataka High Court: Refusal of physical relations is cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, not IPC 498A
The court additionally noted that neither the chargesheet nor the complainant wife described any occurrence or incident that would have qualified as an element of IPC section 498A during the 28 days the couple shared a residence.
FollowThe Karnataka High Court has said that not having physical relationship after the marriage would not amount to cruelty under IPC section 498A, but amount to cruelty under section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act due to non-consummation of marriage.
The court's decision comes while quashing a case under 498A (cruelty) against a man and his parents. It is reportedly said that the couple got married in December 2019 and stayed together only for 28 days. The wife filed a complaint in February 2020. Though the complaint was also against the in-laws, the main grievance of the wife was against the husband, a follower of Brahmakumari.
PM Modi embarks on 5-day US state visit: Here's a look at his previous US trips
According to reports, the husband is accused of watching videos of certain Brahmakumari sister Shivani. The wife allegedly said that the husband would tell her he was not interested in physical relationship and that love is not getting physical relationship and should have soul to soul love.
On the other side, the in-laws were accused of demanding dowry at the time of the marriage and inciting their son to do so.
The wife's petition led to a similar hearing where the family court annulled the marriage. The top court noted that the ruling was based on the claim that the husband and wife had no physical contact. In a motion to the high court, the husband and his parents questioned the charges brought against them for violations under IPC section 498A and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
PM Modi's US Visit: 'Resolve disputes with diplomacy and dialogue, not war...' PM in WSJ interview
The Karnataka high court acknowledged the truth that the parents did not reside with the couple. The court additionally noted that neither the chargesheet nor the complainant wife described any occurrence or incident that would have qualified as an element of IPC section 498A during the 28 days the couple shared a residence.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the only grievance was that the husband never intended to have a physical relationship with his wife.
"This would undoubtedly 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 the IPC. It is on the basis of such cruelty a decree of divorce is granted to the complainant and on the same basis, criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued," Justice Nagaprasanna said.
PM Modi's US Visit: State visit sends a special message
subscribe to Asianet Newsable WhatsApp channel by clicking here.
