Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh held that unnatural sex by a husband with his legally wedded wife is not an unnatural offence.

What was the Background of X v. Y?

• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband), 294 (obscene acts), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The complainant alleged that the petitioner no. 1 (husband) committed unnatural sex with her due to which she got a mouth infection.
• The complainant also alleged that the petitioners forced her to abort her pregnancy and demanded a dowry of Rs. 20 lakhs, subjecting her to verbal and physical torture.
• The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the High Court, seeking quashment of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
• The petitioners contended that the allegations were false and leveled against them to give a criminal angle to a matrimonial dispute.
  • They argued that unnatural sex by a husband with his legally wedded wife is not an offence under Section 377, as per previous judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
• The respondents (complainant and the State) opposed the petition, arguing that unnatural sex with one's wife is an offence under Section 377 and that there were specific allegations of harassment, torture, and forced abortion.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court relied on the amended definition of "rape" under Section 375 of the IPC, which includes acts like insertion of the penis into the mouth, urethra, or anus of a woman.
• The court held that since the complainant (wife) was residing with her husband during the subsistence of their marriage, and any sexual act by a husband with his wife above the age of 15 is not considered rape under Section 375, the husband's consent is immaterial. Therefore, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under Section 377 against petitioner no. 1 (husband).
  • The court also quashed the offences under Sections 294 (obscene acts) and 506 (criminal intimidation) against the petitioners, citing a lack of prima facie evidence.
• However, the court found that prima facie offences under Section 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives) were made out against the petitioners based on the allegations of dowry demands and harassment.
• Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, quashing the offences under Sections 377, 294, and 506, but not the offence under Section 498-A against the petitioners.

What are the Laws Related to Unnatural Offences?

• About:
  • Section 377 of the IPC, deals with "unnatural offences," defining it as voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal.
  • This archaic provision effectively criminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults in private.
  • The section's vague language and lack of clear definition of "against the order of nature" have led to much debate and interpretation by the judiciary.
• Essentials of Unnatural Offences:
  • A person had carnal (sexual) intercourse with a man, woman, or animal.
  • Such intercourse was against the natural order.
  • The act was done voluntarily.
• Types of Unnatural Offences:
  • Lesbianism (female homosexuality)
  • Bestiality (sexual intercourse with animals),
  • Sodomy/buggery (anal intercourse with a man or woman).

What are Landmark Cases on Unnatural Offence?

• Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009):
  • The Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, stating that Section 377 violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution regarding equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty.
• Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014):
  • The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that the right to privacy under Article 21 does not extend to homosexuality.
• National legal Service Authority v. Union of India (2014):
  • The Supreme Court recognized transgender individuals as the third gender and upheld their fundamental rights under various Articles of the Constitution.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018):
  • In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court decriminalized all consensual sex among adults in private, partially striking down Section 377 as unconstitutional.

What are the Landmark Judgments on Unnatural Offence between Husband and Wife?

• Umang Singhar v. State of M.P. (2022):
  • This MP High Court held that in view of the amended definition of rape under Section 375 IPC, which includes various sexual acts between a man and woman, the offense of unnatural sex under Section 377 IPC between a husband and wife has no place.
  • It held that the relationship between a husband and wife cannot be confined only to procreation, and sexual pleasure is an integral part of their bond.
• Manish Sahu v. State of M.P. (2023):
  • Endorsing the Navtej Singh Johar judgment, MP High Court held that if a wife is residing with her husband during the subsistence of a valid marriage, then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with his wife not below 15 years of age will not constitute rape.
  • Therefore, the absence of the wife's consent for an unnatural act loses importance, as marital rape is not recognized.