The Madhya Pradesh High Court has partially allowed a husband's petition seeking to quash an FIR for sexual abuse and dowry harassment, observing that “consent in a marriage is legally immaterial.” A bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Padke was hearing a plea seeking to quash an FIR filed for sections of cruelty, unnatural offences, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation. (Pixabay/Representational Image)
The court observed that in the context of the exceptions provided under rape provisions, any sexual intercourse or sexual acts committed by a husband upon his adult wife do not constitute rape, Live Law reported.
A bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Padke was hearing a plea seeking to quash an FIR filed for sections of cruelty, unnatural offences, voluntarily causing hurt, obscene acts and criminal intimidation.
Padke said that even if the allegations of forced "unnatural acts" made by the complainant accepted, they pertain to acts within marital relationship and therefore does not constitute crime, according to The Times of India.
He further observed that “in light of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife (not being a minor) do not constitute rape.”
The prosecution noted that the couple got married according to Hindu rituals, and the wife's family gave ₹4 lakhs in cash along with ornaments and appliances as dowry. Despite this, the husband allegedly demanded 6 lakh, and the wife alleged that her father-in-law subjected her to inappropriate behaviour.
Also read: Wrong to claim in secular India that a particular religion 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 offence is disclosed. In the current case, it was observed that the FIR reveals only “general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific overt act.”
It noted that the wife did not assign a specific act against the sister-in-law, and quashed the FIR and proceedings against her.
Deciding on the allegations against the husband, the court observed that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by the husband on the wife does not constitute as rape.
The bench reiterated that the scope of rape has been expanded to cover acts like oral and anal penetration. It also clarified that such acts, when occurring within a subsisting marriage, do not attract Section 377 IPC. Therefore, proceeding under this section was quashed.
Meanwhile, the court did not quash other proceedings against the husband.
Also read: Allahabad HC's view on married man's live-in a U-turn from earlier stance: 'Not without divorce'
MP High Court's earlier observation on marital rape In a similar case in May, the MP High Court reportedly ruled that forcing unnatural sex on one's wife, along with physical assault and cruelty, amounts to an offence under Section 498A of the IPC
The court also clarified that the husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 377 or 376, since ‘marital rape’ is not a punishable offence.
The bench, consisting of Justice GS Ahluwalia, observed that while unnatural sex with one’s wife doesn’t amount to an offence under IPC sections 376 or 377, it can still constitute as cruelty if accompanied by voilence.
A day earlier, the Allahabad High Court observed that a married man's live-in relationship is not an offence. A Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was reportedly hearing a plea seeking protection of a live-in couple facing threats from the woman's family.