The court clarified that while this act may be grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, it does not fall within the purview of cruelty as defined by the IPC.
In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the denial of a physical relationship by a husband could be considered cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 but not under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court quashed the proceedings against a man and his parents in a criminal case initiated by his wife in 2020.
The husband approached the high court to challenge the chargesheet filed against him and his parents under Section 498A of the IPC, which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman in the context of marriage, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.
Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he belonged to a certain spiritual order and believed that love should be based on a soul-to-soul connection rather than physical intimacy. The court observed that the husband had no intention of having a physical relationship with his wife, which would unquestionably amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it did not fall within the definition of cruelty as specified under Section 498A of the IPC.
The couple had married on December 18, 2019, but the wife stayed at the marital home for only 28 days. She lodged a police complaint on February 5, 2020, under Section 498A of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging cruelty. Additionally, she filed a case before the family court seeking annulment of the marriage on grounds of cruelty, citing the non-consummation of the marriage. Although the marriage was eventually annulled on November 16, 2022, the wife decided to pursue the criminal case.
The Karnataka High Court determined that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it quashed the proceedings against the husband and his parents, effectively ending the criminal case.