The Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed the husband’s petition seeking quashing of the FIR for sexual assault and dowry harassment, observing that “consent in marriage is legally immaterial”.
The court noted that in the context of the exceptions provided in the rape provisions, any sexual intercourse or sexual acts committed by a husband with his adult wife do not constitute rape, Live Law reported.
A bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Badke was hearing a plea seeking quashing of the FIR filed under sections of cruelty, unnatural offences, voluntarily causing hurt, obscene acts and criminal intimidation.
Badke said that even if the allegations of coercive “unnatural acts” made by the complainant are accepted, they relate to acts within the marital relationship and therefore do not constitute a crime, according to The Times Of India.
He further observed that “in view of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife (who is not a minor) does not constitute rape.”
The prosecution indicated that the couple married according to Hindu rituals, and the wife’s family donated $4 lakhs in cash with ornaments and appliances as dowry. Despite this, the husband allegedly demanded Rs 6 lakh and the wife alleged that her father-in-law subjected her to inappropriate behaviour.
Also read: It is wrong to claim in secular India that a particular religion is the ‘only true religion’, says Allahabad High Court
The court first held that the power to quash an FIR must be used sparingly when no crime has been detected. In the present case, it was observed that the FIR discloses only “general and comprehensive allegations without attributing any specific overt act”.
It pointed out that the wife did not allocate a specific act against the sister-in-law, and quashed the FIR and the proceedings filed against her.
While deciding the allegations against the husband, the court noted that sexual intercourse or sexual acts performed by the husband on the wife do not constitute rape.
The Council reaffirmed that the scope of rape had been expanded to include acts such as oral and anal penetration. It also clarified that such acts, when they occur within an existing marriage, do not attract Section 377 of the IPC. Therefore, the action under this section is quashed.
At the same time, the court did not invalidate other proceedings against the husband.
Also Read: Allahabad HC’s view on married man’s life in a radical turn from previous stance: ‘Not without divorce’
Earlier Supreme Court MP’s observation on marital rape
In a similar case in May, the MP High Court reportedly ruled that forcing a wife to have unnatural sex, coupled with physical assault and cruelty, amounted to an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The court also clarified that the husband could not be tried under Article 377 or 376, as “marital rape” was not a punishable crime.
The bench, comprising Justice GS Ahluwalia, observed that while having unnatural sex with one’s wife does not constitute an offense under Section 376 or 377 of the IPC, it can still constitute cruelty if it is accompanied by violence.
A day earlier, the Allahabad High Court had observed that direct relations between a married man were not considered a crime. Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena were reportedly hearing a plea seeking protection for the couple who are living in their house and facing threats from the woman’s family.
