Non-consensual Marital Sex is not Rape says Gujarat High Court

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

Monday, 2nd April 2018 marked an important day towards women’s emancipation when Gujarat High Court declared that marital rape is an intolerable cruelty towards women. A Single Bench judge of the High Court, Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that non-consensual sex between a married couple does not constitute rape if the woman is above 18 years old. But, Justice Pardiwala also commented that “marital rape is not a husband’s privilege, but rather a violent act and an injustice that must be criminalised.”

The facts of the case relate to the filing of the FIR by a lady doctor against her husband with the Idar Police Station in Sabarkantha district. She alleged that her husband had subjected her to non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts. She also complained about being harassed over dowry and stated that the police did not cooperate with her when she went to them. She requested the Court that her case is transferred to the CID or CBI for proper investigations.

The husband of the petitioner moved to Gujarat High Court to squash her petition of marital rape.

Points of contention

The main points of contention that were raised in this case were two.

  • Whether wife’s non-consent during sexual act has any legal basis for the husband.
  • Whether or not forceful oral sex would fall within the ambit of Section 377 which deals with unnatural sexual acts.

After the decision of the Supreme Court that sex with a girl below 18 years of age is rape even amongst married couples; this decision of the Gujarat High Court tantamount to a win for women’s rights groups as Justice Pardiwala observed marital rape is an issue that needs to be taken seriously as it dehumanises women and statutory measures that call for its abolition should be put into effect immediately.

The decision of the Court

Justice Pardiwala after going through the petition ruled in favour of petitioner-husband stating that although non-consensual but sexual acts between legally adult married couples could not be considered as rape as there is no such provision mentioned under Section 375 IPC and hence it is not a criminal act albeit it is a cruelty towards the wife. The Court further observed that her case need not be transferred to the CID or CBI for proper investigations and reiterated that police investigations should continue to help resolve the matter.

The Court, however, refused to quash the dowry harassment allegations and directed the DSP of Himmatnagar to look into her complaint regarding police non-cooperation and redress her grievances on such issues. The parents of petitioner-husband were also excused from the case as the Court stated that it is a case involving a married couple where in-laws had no particular roles.

On charges of forceful oral sex, the Court explained that the wife can file charges under Section 377 IPC but opined that “except the sexual perversions of sodomy, buggery and bestiality, all other sexual perversions would not fall within the sweep of Sec 377 of the IPC.” She, however, can file charges under Section 354 (outraging women’s modesty) according to Justice Pardiwala.

This marks a change in our justice system where for the first time marital rape is considered a cruelty and Justice Pardiwala further categorised the various forms of marital rape. The decision of the Gujarat High Court ushers a positive change in attitude towards equality (Article 14) as envisioned in our Constitution.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -