<p>The High Court of Karnataka 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.</p>.<p>The court said this while quashing a case under 498A (cruelty) against a man and his parents.</p>.<p>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.</p>.<p>The husband is accused of always watching videos of certain Brahmakumari sister Shivani. The husband would tell his wife that 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 hand, the allegation against the in-laws was that they had demanded dowry at the time of marriage and instigated their son in that regard.</p>.<p>In the similar proceedings, on the petition filed by the wife, the family court had passed the decree, annulling the marriage. The high court observed that the decree was on the ground that the husband did not have physical relationship with the wife. The husband and his parents moved the high court questioning the proceedings for offences under IPC section 498A and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p>.<p>The high court noted that the parents did not stay with the couple is an admitted fact. The court further observed that in those 28 days that the couple lived together, neither the complainant wife nor the charge sheet narrated any factum/incident that would become an ingredient of IPC section 498A. Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the only grievance was that the husband never intended to have a physical relationship with his wife.</p>.<p>“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.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka 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.</p>.<p>The court said this while quashing a case under 498A (cruelty) against a man and his parents.</p>.<p>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.</p>.<p>The husband is accused of always watching videos of certain Brahmakumari sister Shivani. The husband would tell his wife that 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 hand, the allegation against the in-laws was that they had demanded dowry at the time of marriage and instigated their son in that regard.</p>.<p>In the similar proceedings, on the petition filed by the wife, the family court had passed the decree, annulling the marriage. The high court observed that the decree was on the ground that the husband did not have physical relationship with the wife. The husband and his parents moved the high court questioning the proceedings for offences under IPC section 498A and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.</p>.<p>The high court noted that the parents did not stay with the couple is an admitted fact. The court further observed that in those 28 days that the couple lived together, neither the complainant wife nor the charge sheet narrated any factum/incident that would become an ingredient of IPC section 498A. Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the only grievance was that the husband never intended to have a physical relationship with his wife.</p>.<p>“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.</p>