The Karnataka High Court has stayed investigations into a criminal case filed by his wife against a man for allegedly treating her cruelly by denying her French fries, rice and meat after she gave birth to a child in the United States.
Court allows travel
The court also allowed the man to travel to the US to resume his work. He was on the verge of losing his job as he was not allowed to leave India due to a letter of intent (LOC) issued by the Bengaluru City Police, even though he had come to India after his wife had lodged a complaint against him, his parents and his brother.
Granting the interim order on a petition filed by him, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that “allowing any investigation against the husband would be an abuse of the legal process and would reward the wife’s contention that she is not allowed to eat chips…”
The allegations in the lawsuit relate to minor skirmishes that occur in everyday life between a man and a woman and that are being exaggerated in the lawsuit to draw the plaintiffs into the web of crime, the court found.
What the complainant said
“I had to deliver the next day because my blood pressure was high and the doctor said it was not safe for me to go home. After the delivery, my husband did not want me to eat chips, rice and meat because I would gain weight…” his wife alleged in her complaint. She also alleged that some time after the delivery, her husband did not buy her clothes and forced her to get them from her father in India, and also physically and mentally harassed her. She also complained that her husband forced her to do all the housework.
However, the husband denied her allegations and claimed in his petition that he did all the housework every day before leaving for work in the United States and that the wife “only watched television and, when not watching television, talked on the phone with the members of the family.”
Why LOC?
Meanwhile, the court expressed surprise that the police could use their power to secure the LOC under these “trivial circumstances”.
“This is not an exercise of power by the police, but an abuse of power at the behest of the plaintiff. This is not a crime that would merit the issuance of a LOC. The plaintiff’s sole objective appears to be to prevent the plaintiff from returning to his job in the United States,” the court found.
