E-Paper
‘Where would one go to satisfy sexual urges…’: Allahabad HC quashes woman's FIR against dowry
The Allahabad HC quashed an FIR filed by a woman against dowry harassment and unnatural sex by husband due to insufficient evidence.
The Allahabad High Court quashed the dowry charges against a man and ruled that the charges were most likely motivated due to personal disputes. The court further said that “where would one go to satisfy their sexual urges if not their partner in a morally civilised society.”
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed the case against Pranjal Shukla and two others, finding that the evidence presented in the FIR and witness statements did not support the claims of dowry harassment.
The court also noted that the primary allegations in the case are centered around the couple's sexual relationship and the wife's refusal for certain sexual acts.
The high court said that these allegations did not indicate dowry harassment and were more indicative of personal differences between the couple.
"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 FIR has been lodged by the opposite party making out the false and concocted allegations with regard to the demand of dowry," the court stated.
Read more: High court upholds Armed Forces Tribunal ruling on reservist pension
"If a man were to demand sexual favours from his wife and vice versa, where would they go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society?" the court questioned.
The petitioner Meena Shukla filed the FIR against her husband Pranjal Shukla, where she alleged abusive behaviour, including being forced to engage in unnatural sex and watch pornography.
In the FIR, the complainant alleged that Pranjal used to drink and watch porn films and used to insist on unnatural sex with her wife. When she used to object to the same, he did not pay any heed to her objections, it alleged. The FIR also states that the applicant left her wife and went to Singapore alone.
Meesha also filed an FIR against her in-laws Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel Sharma alleging dowry harassment. The FIR states that there was no demand for dowry before the wedding.
Quashing the FIR against Pranjal, the court said, "In the considered opinion of this court, the instant FIR is nothing but a concocted story of demand of dowry by making general and vague allegations against the applicants herein."
(With inputs from PTI)
