The recent verdict by the Karnataka High Court that a man cannot escape trial for rape only because the victim is his wife on Thursday drew mixed reactions from petitioners who have argued on the issue of marital rape before the Delhi High Court.

While feminists are welcoming the Karnataka High Court verdicten’s, men’s rights activist said the judgement sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Advocate Raghav Awasthi, who is representing NGOs RIT Foundation and All India Democratic Women’s Association before the Delhi High Court, said though he has not gone through the entire judgement of the Karnataka High Court, it is a “welcome step”.

“With this, we really hope that more awareness will come in the country in future,” he said.

However, Mr. Amit Lakhani, who is representing Men’s Welfare Trust which is an intervenor in the petitions, said “This recent judgement will only add to this push without application of judicial minds to bring in another draconian law which would not just be unconstitutional in many ways but would serve as a handle for misuse and enable wife to cash in from failed marriages where as husband once accused would go behind bars, lose his job, child, money, self-esteem and would carry a tag of rapist even if case is proved to be false after years of trial and acquittal.”

“The judgement sets an extremely dangerous precedent where the judiciary steps into the shoes of the legislature by interpreting or rather misinterpreting the act and crossing the judicial boundaries.” The Karnataka High Court, in its March 23 verdict, has held that a man cannot escape trial for rape only because the victim is his wife as it is against the right to equality and suggested that lawmakers should heed the “voices of silence” and remove the inequalities in statute,” be further added.

While the central government had not placed its clear stand on the issue of criminalisation of marital rape, it had said that a stand could only be taken by the Centre after consultations with state governments and other stakeholders.

It had said that since this case could have an impact on social and family life with far reaching consequences, the Centre can place its stand only after a consultative process.

In its 2017 affidavit, the Centre had opposed the pleas submitting that marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon that may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing husbands.

However, in January, the Centre told the court that it was “re-looking” at its earlier stand on the petitions as that was brought on record in the affidavit filed several years ago.

The petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC (rape) on the ground that it discriminated against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.