The Madhya Pradesh High Court has found that because Indian law currently does not recognise marital rape, a husband cannot be held accountable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for non-consensual ‘unnatural’ sex with his wife.
The Court further stated that anything done between a husband and wife that goes beyond what is considered normal sexual intercourse cannot be categorically labelled as ‘unnatural’ sexual intercourse because the marital relationship is far more than just procreation. As a result, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi dismissed a first information report (FIR) submitted by the wife of sitting Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly member Umang Singhar claiming rape and an offence under Section 377 (unnatural crimes) of the IPC.
In the present case, the husband was accused by his wife of engaging in unnatural sexual acts with her.
The husband’s lawyer 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 constitute 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 noted that both parties were members of the same political party who had married after a longstanding relationship. However, when their relationship deteriorated, both parties filed complaints against each other, the Court observed.
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.
Further, the Court also found that there was no allegation of any dowry demand to allege the commission of an offence under Section 498A (cruelty to woman) IPC.
The husband’s plea to quash the criminal complaint against him was,, therefore, allowed by the High Court.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, therefore, quashed a first information report (FIR) filed by the wife of sitting member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Umang Singhar alleging that he had committed rape and the offence under Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC.
The Court passed its ruling while also referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the Navtej Singh Jorhar case, wherein the top court had ruled that a consensual sexual relation between homosexual persons is not a crime.
Normally, a sexual relationship between the husband and wife is the key to a happy connubial life and that cannot be restricted to the extent of sheer procreation, the High Court said, in the present case.
“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,” the Court added.
