Marital Rape Not Recognized In India: Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Acquittal Of Man In 'Unnatural' Sex Allegation Filed By Wife
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the order acquitting a man charged in unnatural sex offence. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Navjet Singh Johar v. Union of India Ministry of Law and judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a single judge bench of Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that till date...
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the order acquitting a man charged in unnatural sex offence.
Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Navjet Singh Johar v. Union of India Ministry of Law and judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a single judge bench of Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that till date “marital rape” has not been recognized under IPC.
The petitioner-wife alleged she was subjected to cruelty, demand of dowry and unnatural sexual intercourse. Thus, a FIR was lodged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A (Cruelty), 377 (Unnatural Offences), 323 (Punishment for Voluntary Causing Hurt), 294 (Obscene Acts and Songs) and 506 (Punishment for Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC and also under Section 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) read with Section 4 (Penalty for Demanding Dowry) of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that despite overwhelming evidence, Respondent No. 2 – husband was discharged from offence under Section 377 of IPC.
On the contrary, the counsel for Respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order on the ground that offence under Section 377 of IPC has been declared as unconstitutional by the Apex Court and as per amended definition of 'rape' under Section 375 of IPC during subsistence of marriage sexual intercourse with wife does not constitute an offence under Section 377 of IPC.
After hearing the parties, the Court referred to a few judgements deliberating on the aspect of unnatural sex between husband and wife and referring to amended definition of 'rape' under Section 375 of IPC. The Court also noted that “marital rape” has not been recognized under IPC till date.
The court also referred to the judgement of Manish Sahu S/o Shri Onkar Prasad Sahu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it was observed, “However, this Court after considering the amended definition of "rape" as defined under Section 375 of IPC has already come to a conclusion that if a wife is residing with her husband during the subsistence of a valid marriage, then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his own wife not below the age of fifteen years will not be rape. Therefore, in view of the amended definition of "rape" under Section 375 of IPC by which the insertion of penis in the anus of a woman has also been included in the definition of "rape" and any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, then under these circumstances, absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance. Marital rape has not been recognized so far…Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR would not make out an offence under Section 377 of IPC.”
Thus, in light of the above judgements, the court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: JK Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another, Criminal Revision No. 1937 Of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 83