Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra has observed that ‘protection of a person from marital rape continues in cases where his wife is of 18 years of age or more than that’.

What is the Background of the case?

• The prosecutrix, the wife of the accused as well as the informant, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against her husband invoking Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 377 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and asserted that the accused demanded a Fortuner car and Rs. 40 lakhs in cash, pressuring her to obtain a dowry from her parents.
• The accused, filing the instant revision plea against his conviction, submitted before the Allahabad High Court that the FIR in question is fraught with baseless accusations and the same was filed at the instigation of the prosecutrix and her family members.
• The trial court convicted him under the aforesaid sections and in appeal, the appellate court also upheld the finding that engaging in unnatural sexual acts such as sodomy and oral sex with one's spouse constituted marital misconduct and represented an act of cruelty perpetrated by the husband against the wife.
• Consequently, his conviction under Sections 323, 498-A, and 377 of the IPC was upheld.
• The accused moved to the HC with the instant revision plea.
• The HC observed that evidence on record and the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the court concluded that the revisionist was liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 377 IPC.
• The conviction and sentence for the charge under Section 498-A, 323 IPC as recorded by the courts below was affirmed and the instant revision was partly allowed.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• While acquitting a husband of the charges under Section 377 IPC for allegedly committing an ‘unnatural offence’ against his wife, the Allahabad HC has observed that protection of a person from marital rape continues in cases where his wife is of 18 years of age or more than that.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• The IPC, which was enacted in 1860, does not explicitly criminalize marital rape. One of the primary challenges in addressing marital rape in India has been the societal perception that the institution of marriage grants automatic consent for sexual relations.
• However, there have been significant developments in recent years that suggest a growing acknowledgment of the issue. One landmark case that brought attention to marital rape in India is the Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) case, decided by the Supreme Court.
  • The court in this case ruled that any sexual intercourse between a man and his minor wife aged between 15 to 18 years would amount to rape.
• The court, in its decision, emphasized the importance of recognizing the autonomy and agency of married women, stating that even within the bounds of marriage, a woman has the right to her bodily integrity. The judgment underscored the idea that consent is a fundamental aspect of any sexual relationship, including within the institution of marriage.
• Section 375 of IPC covers the offence of ‘Rape’ however it does not recognize the concept of marital rape with wife above 18 years of age.
• A division bench of Delhi HC comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar gave split verdict on marital rape in the case of RIT Foundation v. Union of India and other connected matters (2022).
• Justice Rajiv Shakdher held that "Exception 2 of 375, 376B IPC in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 and are therefore unconstitutional."
• However, Justice C Hari Shankar did not support the contention of Justice Rajiv Shakdher to adjudge marital rape unconstitutional.