Husband called wife barren, wife called husband impotent: What Allahabad HC held

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that addressing a wife as “barren woman” may not constitute cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when there is exchange of “filthy verbal blows” from both sides.

Justice Indrajeet Shukla was dealing with a man’s petition challenging a Lucknow court order summoning him in a complaint filed by his wife over alleged cruelty, dowry demand and intentional insult. 

“In the case in hand, the entire version of complainant if tested on the touchstone of legal requirements, for even prima facie constituting the offence of cruelty, the address as ‘barren woman’ could not be termed as cruelty, particularly when there are exchange of filthy verbal blows from both the sides,” the Court said.

It noted that the wife herself had called the husband “impotent” when she was addressed as “barren woman” by him and his relatives. It added that since there was a matrimonial discord between the couple due to want of a child, it had led to exchange of offensive remarks.

“Mere taunts regarding childlessness, refusal to undergo medical examination, or verbal altercations arising from such domestic discord cumulatively without fulfilling essential(s) of cruelty envisaged under Section 498-A IPC, cannot by themselves constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of the said penal provision,” the Bench said.

It added that the allegation of calling the complainant a ‘barren woman’ is undoubtedly insensitive and reprehensible but in the present case, such utterance did not satisfy the ingredients of intentional insult with intent or knowledge to provoke a breach of the peace to attract Section 504 IPC. 

The Court further said that the allegations portray an unhappy matrimonial relationship and incompatibility between the couple. In this regard, it said that Section 498A of IPC was not intended to criminalise every marital disagreement or every instance of domestic unpleasantness.

Criminal prosecution is not a panacea for all evils arising out of matrimonial discords, the Court underscored.

“Mere calling someone as “barren women” (infertile) would not ipso facto attract the essential ingredients of the offence under section 498 A IPC as, there is no positive statement of fact that such address was with a view to drive the complainant to commit suicide, or causing grave injury or endanger her life, limb or physical or mental health,” the Bench further said.

The Court also found that there was not even a single word suggesting dowry demand. It ruled that the allegations were general and omnibus in nature. Further, the Court also noted that the allegation of assault was not backed by medical evidence. 

Therefore, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband.

“From overall factual scenario as it is projected, if remains uncontroverted, it comes out, the issue of not having child went to hilt of frustration leading to allegation and counter allegation including abuses and counter abuses by parties, the prosecution story if reads verbatim appears to be highly improbable,” the Court concluded.

Advocate Shobhit Singh represented the husband.

Advocate Chandan Srivastava represented the wife.