Karnataka High Court: Not Having Physical Relationship After Marriage Is Not Cruelty Under IPC 498A
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the absence of physical relations after marriage does not qualify as cruelty under IPC Section 498A. However, it can be considered cruelty under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act due to non-consummation of the marriage.
Case Overview
A couple married in December 2019 but lived together for only 28 days. In February 2020, the wife filed a complaint, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. The complaint was primarily against her husband, who followed the Brahma Kumari lifestyle.
According to the wife, her husband was uninterested in a physical relationship and frequently watched videos of Brahma Kumari Sister Shivani. He reportedly told her that true love is spiritual and does not require physical intimacy.
The in-laws were also accused of demanding dowry and encouraging their son to take it.
Court Observations
The family court had already annulled the marriage based on non-consummation. The husband and his parents then approached the High Court to challenge the criminal proceedings under IPC 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The High Court noted:
- The husband’s lack of physical interest in the marriage may be grounds for annulment but does not meet the criteria for cruelty under IPC 498A.
- The in-laws did not live with the couple, and no evidence was provided to prove cruelty or harassment.
- There were no incidents recorded in the charge sheet that indicated cruelty under IPC 498A.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated:
“Cruelty under IPC 498A means willful conduct that could drive a woman to suicide or cause serious harm. Harassment involves coercion for unlawful demands, such as dowry. The complaint does not contain any such allegations.”
The court concluded that while non-consummation of marriage can be considered cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, it does not justify criminal proceedings under IPC 498A.
Final Verdict
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the criminal charges against the husband and his family but upheld the marriage annulment. The ruling clarifies that the absence of physical intimacy in a marriage does not automatically qualify as cruelty under IPC 498A.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
