Husband Can't Be Held Liable Under Section 377 (Unnatural Sex): Court

A husband cannot be held liable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for non-consensual “unnatural” sexual relations with his wife since Indian law currently does not criminalise marital rape, observed the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a recent ruling.

The court said that Section 375 (rape) of the IPC specifically excludes marital sexual relationships from its purview. Further, the bench noted that anything done between a husband and wife that is beyond what is considered “natural sexual intercourse” cannot be categorically labelled "unnatural sexual intercourse” since a marital relationship is not merely for procreation.

MP Court Husband Cannot Be Held For Unnatural Sex

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi made the above remark while quashing 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 the offence under Section 377 (unnatural sex) of the IPC.

The court also cited the Supreme Court judgement in the Navtej Singh Johar case, where the top court observed that consensual sexual relations between homosexual persons are not a crime.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the present case noted that the sexual relationship between the husband and wife is the key to connubial life and cannot be restricted to the mere act of procreation. It added that if anything raises their longing towards each other, gives them pleasure, and ascends their pleasure, then it is nothing uncustomary and cannot be considered unnatural either, as Section 375 includes all possible types of penetration of the penis by a husband into his wife.

Looking at the legal definition of rape according to Section 375, the judgement quoted, "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 the IPC."

In the present case, the wife also accused the husband of engaging in unnatural behaviour. The husband’s counsel argued that the allegations were unfounded since the alleged acts were performed while he was married to the complainant.

After hearing both sides, the court concluded that the husband’s action did not constitute a punishable act under Section 376(2)(n) (rape) and Section 377 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature) of the IPC. The court also dismissed the allegations levelled by the wife against the husband under sections 294 (obscene acts or songs) and 506 (criminal intimidation), considering them “malicious prosecution. It also found that the alleged dowry demand under section 498A (cruelty to woman) was fake.

The MP court noted that both parties belonged to the same political party and had gotten married after a long-standing relationship. However, when the relationship deteriorated, both of them filed complaints against each other. The court thus allowed the husband’s pleas and quashed the criminal complaint against him.

Suggested Reading: Supreme Court Will Now Hear Pleas On Marital Rape In Mid-October