The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a husband cannot be held liable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for non-consensual ‘unnatural’ sexual relations with his wife since Indian law presently does not have provisions to consider it as marital rape.
The Court said that Section 375 (which defines ‘rape’) of the IPC specifically excludes marital sexual relations from its purview.
The Court also observed that anything that took place, between a husband and a wife, which is viewed as natural sexual intercourse cannot be categorically labeled as ‘unnatural’ sexual intercourse since the marital relationship is not only for making babies or giving birth to a child.
The Court held, “When same act as per the definition of Section 375 is not an offence, then how it can be treated to be an offence under Section 377 IPC …The relationship between the husband and wife cannot be confined to their sexual relationship only for the purpose of procreation, but if anything is done between them apart from the deemed natural sexual intercourse should not be defined as ‘unnatural’.”
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, therefore, quashed a first information report (FIR) filed by the wife of a sitting member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Umang Singhar, alleging that he had committed rape and offence under Section 377 (unnatural offences)of the IPC.
In the present case, the High Court said, a sexual relationship between the husband and wife is the key to a happy marital life and cannot be restricted to the extent of sheer procreation.
The Court said, “If anything raises their longing towards each other giving them pleasure and ascends their pleasure then it is nothing uncustomary and it can also not be considered to be unnatural that too when Section 375 IPC includes all possible parts of penetration of penis by a husband to his wife.“
As the law stands, the Court noted that consent is not necessary for sexual acts between a married couple or spouses. As such, no unnatural offences could be established related to the sexual acts between a married couple, the Court said.
The judgment said, “As per the amended definition, if offender and victim are husband and wife then consent is immaterial and no offence under Section 375 is made out and as such there is no punishment under Section 376 of IPC.“
The Court also commented that if procreation is viewed as the only purpose of sexual relations between spouses, then a marital relationship would be reduced to being useless if the spouses are unable to procreate.
The Court said, “If sexual intercourse for procreation via penile-vaginal penetrative intercourse is considered to be natural sex and sexual relations of husband and wife is confined to that extent then in case if any husband or wife is not capable of procreation, then seemingly their relationship would become useless, but it does not happen. The conjugal relationship between husband wife includes love that has intimacy, compassion, and sacrifice, although it is difficult to understand the emotions of husband and wife who share intimate bond, but sexual pleasure is integral part of their relentless bonding with each other.“
In the present case, the husband was accused by his wife of engaging in unnatural sexual acts with her.
The counsel of the husband argued that these allegations were unfounded since the alleged sexual acts were performed while he was married to the complainant.
After hearing rival submissions, the Court concluded that the husband’s actions did not possess an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)(rape) and Section 377 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature) of the IPC.
The Court also observed that both parties were members of the same political party who had married after a long relationship. However, when their relationship started turning worse, both parties filed complaints against each other, observed the Court.
The Court proceeded to also dismiss allegations leveled by the wife against the husband concerning offences under Section 294 (obscene acts or songs) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, terming it to be a malicious prosecution.
Moreover, the Court also found that there was no allegation made of any dowry demand to allege the commission of an offence under Section 498A.
Subsequently, the husband’s plea to quash the criminal complaint against him was allowed by the High Court.
Advocates Vibhor Khandelwal, Ashish Agrawal and Jayesh Gurnam appeared for the petitioner (husband). Advocate Puneet Shroti represented the State. Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal and advocate Rahul Gupta represented the second respondent (wife).
News Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/husband-section-377-ipc-unnatural-sex-wife-madhya-pradeshhighcourt-umang-singhar