Crispy conflict: Stopping wife from eating French fries not cruelty, says Karnataka high court | Bengaluru News – Times of India

BENGALURU: In a relief to a US-based man, the high court stayed investigation by Bengaluru police regarding a case registered by his wife on charges of cruelty, claiming he did not allow her to eat French fries.
After the complaint was filed under Sections 498A and 504 of IPC as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act, police issued a lookout circular (LOC) against the man, which effectively impeded his travel back to the US to join his work.
Justice M Nagaprasanna ordered a stay on the lookout circular till Sept 21, the next date of hearing, and allowed the husband to travel to the US, after taking on record his affidavit, wherein he has undertaken to be available for investigation.

In his detailed order passed Thursday, the judge directed police to forthwith intimate the Bureau of Immigration regarding the travel of the petitioner, and not interdict or ostracise him during his trip to the US.
The contention of the wife was that after she delivered a baby, she had high blood pressure, and the husband did not allow her to eat French fries, rice and meat fearing she would put on weight.
On the other hand, the husband argued that all the household work was done by him in the US during their stay, and the wife only watched television and chatted with family members over the phone. According to him, he had to wash the dishes, mop the house and then proceed to work every day.
After perusing the complaint filed by the woman, the high court noted that it nowhere indicated any ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 498A, i.e., cruelty, and added that “permitting investigation against the husband would become an abuse of the law”.
“It is rather surprising how jurisdictional police have used the power for getting an LOC generated in the aforesaid trivial circumstances. It is not the use of power by police but misuse of power at the behest of the complainant. There is no crime worth the name of issuance of LOC. The only object of the complainant appears to be stopping the petitioner from travelling back to his employment in the US,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.