French Fry Feud: Karnataka HC Steps In After Bengaluru Woman's Complaint Against Husband

The Karnataka High Court recently stayed a Bengaluru woman's unusual complaint against her US-based husband, who she claimed was cruel for denying her French fries. The Court also paused the Look Out Notice (LOC) issued against him.

File Photo

The Karnataka High Court recently intervened in a peculiar case where a Bengaluru woman accused her US-based husband of cruelty for allegedly barring her from eating French fries. Last week, the Court stayed her plea and halted a Look Out Notice (LOC) against the husband, preventing his return to the US. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, restricted the police from investigating the husband, who is 36, and criticized the complaint as lacking substantial grounds. The case was filed under Sections 498A (domestic cruelty) and 504 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, alongside the Dowry Prohibition Act. 

The woman, 29, had initially reported her husband to the South Women police station in Basavanagudi, accusing her husband of dowry harassment. 

She claimed that he restricted her diet to prevent weight gain following childbirth. The husband countered in court, arguing that he managed all household chores in the US while his wife spent her time watching TV and chatting. 

Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that allowing any investigation would misuse the legal process and questioned the police's decision to issue an LOC over such a minor issue. He noted that the complaint did not present a valid case under Section 498A, and criticized the use of police power as a means to prevent the husband's travel. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “Permitting any investigation against the husband… would become an abuse of the process of the law and putting a premium on the act of the wife in alleging that she was not allowed to eat French fries at the relevant point in time.” 

Justice Nagaprasanna further stated, “The complaint nowhere indicates any ingredient of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC even against the husband.” 

The judge also expressed surprise with the police issuing an LOC in such ‘trivial matters’. “It is not use of power by the police but misuse of power at the behest of the complainant (woman). There is no crime worth the name of issuance of LOC. The only object of the complainant appears to be stopping the petitioner (husband) from traveling back to… the USA…” he added.