No Rape Case Made Out Against Legally Wedded Husband When Wife Was Major At Time Of Marriage: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a rape FIR filed against a man by his wife, opining that in light of the definition of rape under Section 375, IPC and the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the aspect of consent within marriage was rendered legally immaterial for prosecution of offences like rape. The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that since...
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a rape FIR filed against a man by his wife, opining that in light of the definition of rape under Section 375, IPC and the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the aspect of consent within marriage was rendered legally immaterial for prosecution of offences like rape.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that since the petitioner was the legally wedded husband of the victim, offence of rape was not made out owing to the exception 2 under Section 375, IPC.
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.”
Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC excludes the act of sexual intercourse by a man with his wife (not under 15 years of age) from the definition of rape.
The parties got married under the Special Marriage Act, considering that their inter-caste marriage was not acceptable to the prosecutrix's family members.
However, the fact of this marriage was disputed by the prosecutrix, arguing that she was forced to sign the marriage papers based on an obscene video of her.
Subsequently, both the parties had reached the family court wherein the petitioner had filed for restitution of conjugal rights, while the prosecutrix had filed for annulment of marriage.
Both of these application were rejected by the Family Court, against which appeals were filed by both the parties. Both of these appeals were pending adjudication.
Eventually, almost two months after the marriage, the prosecutrix filed the present FIR alleging that the petitioner committed rape upon her for last more than one month.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the records, and opined that based on the attached photographs, it seemed that the marriage was solemnized with mutual consent.
“However, it appears that subsequently, the prosecutrix has changed her mind and lodged the instant F.I.R., after a lapse of around two months from the date of solemnization of their marriage, wherein the allegations of rape have been levelled against the petitioner.”
In relation to the allegation of rape, the Court highlighted Section 375, IPC, and held that sexual intercourse by a man of his own wife was not rape, if the wife was above 15 years of age.
“The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 1 SCC 791 has held that in the light of Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife (not being a minor) do not constitute rape, thereby rendering the aspect of consent within marriage legally immaterial for the purpose of prosecuting such acts as rape.”
In this light, the Court held that since the accused was legally wedded husband of the victim, offence of rape was not made out.
Opining that the prosecutrix was a major lady at the time of her marriage, who had solemnized the marriage with the accused out of her own free will, the FIR was termed as the abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the FIR was quashed and set aside.
Title: Gajendra Mourya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 188