Image used for representation.
The High Court, who said that the law does not recognize the concept of rape of marriage, abolished the order of direct prosecution for the implementation of “unnatural” sex with his wife.
Also read | The Supreme Court challenges the logic that is behind the exception of marital rape in criminal law
The Court noted that section 377 IPC penalizing such acts will not apply in a marital relationship, especially if the claim of consent has disappeared.
The justice of Swaran Kant Sharma dealt with a man’s plaintiff against the court order of the court court, which ordered the framing of section 377 (punishment for unnatural crimes) against him for allegedly performing oral sex with his wife.
The judgment stated that the law did not recognize the concept of rape of marriage.
“There is no foundation to assume that the spouse would not be protected from prosecution according to Section 377 IPC, with regard to exception 2 to Section 375 IPC from the law (altered section 375 IPC) now assumes the expected consent to the sexual judge, as well as sexual act, including anal or oral relationship,” he said.
The High Court noted that the wife did not explicitly announced if the law was carried out against her will or without her consent.
“The basic component of insufficient consent-in-the-line with a crime according to Section 377 IPC Post-Navte Singh Johar (case) between two adults-apparently missing.
Editorial | The importance of consent: about the rape of marriage
The best court in the verdict visited de-criminalized consensual sex among adults, including those of the same sex.
“No case of Prima Facia is submitted against the petitioner for a crime according to Section 377 IPC. Therefore
The court also stated that laws such as anal intercourse or oral sex were included in the extent of the rape offense according to section 375 (a). A) IPC and there was no foundation that would assume that the petitioner would not fall into the immunity granted by the spouses under the “exception” of the rape crime.
“In connection with the marital relationship, Section 377 IPC cannot be used to criminalize non-prize vaginal intercourse between husband and wife. Such an interpretation would be in accordance with the reasoning and observation of the Supreme Court in Vist Singh Johar (case),” the court said in his 13th May.
It was found that the wife claimed that the man was “impotent” and their marriage was the result of a conspiracy from him and his father to establish illegal relations and blackmail money from her family.
The man claimed that the marriage was legally recognized and assumed the assumption of consent to consensual sexual acts and his nature could not represent a crime according to Section 377.
The judge emphasized the “inherent contradiction” in the statement of the wife, who, on the one hand, allegedly sexual inability of a man and equalized the accusations that indicate the performance of oral sex on the other.
Published – May 21, 2025 06:21
