How will spouses satisfy sexual urges if not from each other? Allahabad High Court junks cruelty case

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a case of cruelty lodged against a husband by his wife after opining that the dispute arose from the "sexual incompatibility" of the couple [Pranjal Shukla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another]..While quashing the woman's case alleging that the man made dowry demands, subjected her to torture and performed unnatural sexual activities, the Court said,"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.".Justice Anish Kumar Gupta went on to state,"...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...".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.Allahabad High Court.The couple got married in 2015, after which the man and his family allegedly made dowry demands from the woman. She alleged that on non-fulfillment of the dowry demands, she was abused and assaulted.The wife also stated that her husband was addicted to alcohol and had demanded unnatural sex from her. She further alleged that he frequently watched porn films and used to roam around nude before her and masturbate. When she objected to such acts, her husband allegedly tried to strangled her. She claimed that her husband went to Singapore, leaving her behind with her in-laws. After eight months, when she went to Singapore, she was again tortured by her husband..A case was registered against the husband and his family members under under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 323 (hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.Aggrieved, the husband and in-laws have moved the present quashing plea before the High Court..The Court was of the view that the wife made general and vague allegations of being tortured by her husband and in-laws."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," the Court observed while quashing the case..Senior Advocate Vinay Saran, assisted by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra, appeared for the husband.Advocate Bharat Singh Pal appeared for the wife.Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Srivastava appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..[Read Judgment]