Karnataka High Court Stays Cruelty Case Over French Fries Dispute, Allows Husband to Return to U.S.

Karnataka High Court Stays Cruelty Case Over French Fries Dispute, Allows Husband to Return to U.S.

The Karnataka High Court has stayed the investigation of a criminal case filed by a woman against her husband, who she accused of cruelty for allegedly preventing her from eating French fries, rice, and meat after delivering their child in the United States. The court has also allowed the husband to return to the U.S. to rejoin his work, after the Bengaluru city police issued a lookout circular (LOC) against him, which had previously barred him from leaving the country.

Court's Ruling on the Case

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who issued the interim order, observed that allowing the investigation to continue would constitute an "abuse of the process of law" and would unjustly favor the wife's allegations. The judge noted that the complaint appeared to stem from minor marital disputes that had been exaggerated to criminalize the husband and his family.

In her complaint, the wife alleged that after her delivery, her husband restricted her diet to prevent her from gaining weight. She also accused him of not buying clothes for her post-delivery, forcing her to obtain them from her father in India, and subjecting her to physical and mental harassment. Additionally, she claimed that her husband compelled her to do all the household chores.

The husband, however, denied these accusations, asserting in his petition that he took on all the household responsibilities before leaving for work each day, while his wife spent her time watching television and chatting with family members over the phone.

Misuse of Power in Issuing LOC

The court also questioned the issuance of the LOC by the police, expressing surprise that such a measure was used in what it described as "trivial circumstances." Justice Nagaprasanna criticized the action as a misuse of power, allegedly motivated by the complainant's intent to prevent the husband from returning to his job in the U.S. The court emphasized that there was no substantial criminal element in the case that warranted such a severe restriction on the husband's movement.

Implications of the Case

The court's decision to stay the investigation and allow the husband to travel back to the U.S. underscores the judiciary's stance against the misuse of legal provisions in marital disputes. The case highlights the importance of distinguishing between serious allegations of cruelty and conflicts arising from routine marital disagreements. As the case proceeds, it may set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly regarding the use of legal instruments like LOCs in domestic cases.