LI Network
Published on: 23 September 2023 at 11:51 IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that husbands cannot be held liable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for non-consensual “unnatural” sexual relations with their wives. The court emphasized that Indian law does not currently recognize marital rape.
Section 375 of the IPC, which defines ‘rape,’ specifically excludes marital sexual relations from its purview. The court argued that anything beyond what is considered natural sexual intercourse between spouses cannot be labeled as ‘unnatural’ sexual intercourse, as the marital relationship serves purposes beyond procreation.
The court quashed a first information report (FIR) filed by a wife against her husband, a sitting member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, alleging rape and an offense under Section 377 of the IPC.
The ruling also referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Navtej Singh Johar case, which decriminalized consensual sexual relations between homosexual individuals.
The High Court emphasized that a healthy marital relationship is not limited to procreation and that any act between spouses that brings them pleasure and strengthens their bond should not be deemed unnatural. The court pointed out that, as per the IPC’s amended definition, consent is irrelevant for sexual acts between spouses, making it impossible to establish an unnatural offense in such cases.
The court also highlighted that reducing the purpose of sexual relations between spouses to procreation alone would render their relationship meaningless if they were unable to procreate. It emphasized that conjugal relationships involve love, intimacy, compassion, and sacrifice, with sexual pleasure being an integral part of their bond.
In this particular case, the husband was accused of engaging in unnatural sexual acts with his wife.
The court concluded that these allegations did not constitute offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape) and Section 377 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature) of the IPC. It also dismissed other allegations against the husband, including obscene acts, criminal intimidation, and cruelty to women, terming them malicious prosecution.
The husband’s plea to quash the criminal complaint was allowed by the High Court.