Tag:

sexual intercourse

Marital Rape Jurisprudence: Inconsistencies Reaffirming Cruelty Based on Age

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Lauren Prem

Cruelty anywhere is sickening, but cruelty within marriage is ironic and sickening! Marital rape has been a contested issue since time immemorial. The issue resurfaced after the recent Bombay High Court’s ruling on 12^th November 2024, wherein a man’s 10-year jail sentence for committing rape on his minor wife, was upheld. While there is no fault in the court’s decision, the news brought me to many realizations relating to the inconsistencies that plague rape laws in India.

The Marital Rape Exception (MRE), previously found in the IPC, is retained in the new penal code under section 63, which defines rape. Exception II reads “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.” Applying the law, the Bombay HC ruled that the exception will be inapplicable to the case at hand, by virtue of the wife being a minor, as minors are incapable of giving consent. This raises jurisprudential questions as to whether consent is the sole-determining factor, if not a crucial factor, in marital rape cases.

The judgement portrays consent to be crucial in marital rape cases. On the other hand, the MRE provision states otherwise. In this long-standing debate, proponents of MRE stated that marriage itself is construed as consent and consent for every individual act is not necessary. The MRE is, however, inapplicable to minors based on the aspect of consent. If these two arguments are read-together, a real conundrum exists.

Many significant questions arise. Does consent play a role in construing MRE? If not, what is the basis for the age differentiation in the MRE provision? The MRE makes a demarcation of married women based on age of majority. The basis of demarcation is severely flawed as individual consent holds no relevance in determining marital rape. The MRE itself is premised on the presumption that marriage is adequate to establish the existence of consent. This shatters the basis of treating minor married women differently.

This inconsistency practically serves a good purpose for minor married women by prohibiting the applicability of MRE. However, it makes a differentiation that is plainly an inconsistency reaffirming cruelty based on age. The rationale in the ruling logically prompts us to ask – would consent be factored in, if the woman in the case was a major? The answer certainly being in the negative, directs us to question basis and existence of the MRE provision itself.

The right to question this unscrupulous provision need not only vest with a law student capable of unpacking the sheer inconsistencies within the law. It becomes the right of every citizen to question the unfulfilled promises made to him. After the Modi government made an attractive promise of revamping the criminal law system to erase colonial traces, every citizen may ask – is it more Bharatiya to sanction rape?

To question inconsistencies is just the cherry on top. As with or without inconsistencies, a citizen may question legally sanctioned cruelty in a Bharat that has proudly developed a strong fundamental right jurisprudence since independence. Laws are constantly produced and interpreted by courts. In fact, the basic structure doctrine – declaring fundamental rights to be a basic feature of the constitution was evolved during a time when the MRE existed in the IPC. This has led to a status where multitude of laws and doctrines are followed simultaneously without according priority to the non-negotiable rights.

Even worse, fundamental rights have assumed a conditional status. Marriage, viewed to be a beautiful union, has proven to have swept fundamental rights under a rug. Although stereotypes ought to change through societal mindsets, judgements and laws play a huge role in setting standards for the society. The new criminal laws are gruesome for not only setting a bad standard but for reaffirming it. People may vary in their opinions and ideals but a government needs to uphold the best interests of its citizens.

The existence of the MRE perpetuates cruelty and creates a state of chaos that has a possibility of disrupting the long-thread of fundamental right jurisprudence developed by the judiciary. The ball is in the government’s court to set a new ideal – one which upholds equality before law and truly removes colonial traces!

08/12/2024 0 comments 45 views

Marital Rape in India: An Outdated Legislation

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Prakhar Tripathi

The doors of Delhi High Court have been fluttering since last one month with voices being raised to criminalize exception 2 Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). All India Democratic Women Association, RIT Foundation and two other organizations are behind putting forth this initiative. The Court has been going through the legality of the exception and whether it serves any purpose in modern-day India or is it just a colonial provision still draping in the books of the criminal manual.

Exception 2 to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: –

Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

A majority of the common law countries have already done away with the draconian provision of marital rape wherein the husband considers the wife as his chattel and performs sexual acts with her even if it is against her will. In fact, India remains one of the only 32 countries in the world where this exception remains to prevail.

England and Wales outdid this provision in the case of R v R in the year 1991 by the Appellate committee of the House of Lords. In Germany, marital rape was outlawed in the year 1997 after female rights activists for 25 years protested against it. Australia criminalized this provision in the year 1991 in the case of R v L by stating that such law was not part of the Australian Law.

Henceforth, the originators of the common law have outdone with this provision, but it still remains an evil continuing to haunt Indian society.

Let us analyse how faintly this provision stands on the footholds of the legal bedrock.

Prima facie, there are three ingredients of rape :- ‘Sexual Intercourse’, ‘Against her will’ and ‘Without her consent’ . Any act satisfying these three criteria falls into the category of Rape. But then, a stalemate has been created in the same section by giving protection to a person who is legally wedded to the victim and whose act satisfies all of these criteria. The exception gives her husband the right to have sexual intercourse with her whether she is willing or not eventually becoming a subject to his whims and fancies thus, violating every right which the women as an individual possess.

Over the years, lots of women in India have been subjected to this social evil. The National Family health survey (NFHS) 2015- 2016 states that 99.1 percent of the sexual violence cases go unreported and an average Indian woman is 17 times more likely to encounter sexual violence from her husband than from others.

The legislators of the country put forth the argument that it might be detrimental for the Indian family structure if this change in the statute is allowed almost overlooking the fact that this exception is violative of the pristine fundamental rights that our constitution provides.

Violative of Article 14 and 21

Article 14 of the Indian constitution states that there shall be equality before the law but the State has to follow an intelligible differentia wherein like should be treated alike and different treatment of people who are in different circumstances. The test of intelligible differentia has been laid down in the case of State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar wherein it has been held that that the differentiation or classification needs to have cogent nexus with the purpose sought to be realized by the statute in question. The exception acts as a sledgehammer in the statute wherein it creates a stark difference between women who are married and those who are unmarried. By the creation of this exception, the section fails to deny the very protection to married women for which it has been devised. The distinction so created neither has a rational nexus with the statute so created nor does it serve the purpose sought by the section.

Similar has been the view of the J.S Verma committee report constituted to recommend changes in the criminal law system which emphasised highly that the exception related to the marital rape should be done away with and that marriage is never an irrevocable consent to sexual acts and that wife is never a subservient chattel of husband.

The exception also violates Article 21 of the constitution which provides for Right to life and personal liberty. The Apex Indian court has in various cases expanded the meaning of ‘life’ in Article 21 by quoting the observation of Field J in the American case of Munn v Illinois wherein it has been stated that the term ‘life’ means much more than an animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. In the case of ‘State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa it has been held that sexual violence is an intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of the female’. In the case of Suchitra Srivastav vs Chandigarh administration it has been held that Article 21 includes the right of a woman to make reproductive choices. None of these judgements differentiate between a woman who is married and the one unmarried. Also, none of the other offences mentioned in the IPC propagate such an arbitrary and repulsive differentiation between a married and unmarried woman. Section 375 is the only anomaly that remains. Henceforth, the contrast created by the section is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Progressive Judicial Pronouncements

Time and again has the Indian Judiciary held that the exception is a dying provision and needs to be done away with. In the case of Sakshi vs Union of India reference was made to the case of R v R [1991] 4 All ER 481 in which it has ‘been held that a husband and wife are equal partners in a marriage, therefore a husband not being criminally liable for raping his wife if he has sexual intercourse with her no longer forms part of the law of England’

In the case of Satyawati Sharma vs Union of India it has been held that legislation that might have been reasonable and practical at the time of their enactment may become redundant, arbitrary and unreasonable with the lapse of time. Similarly, exception 2 of IPC over the years has become redundant and serves no purpose in modern day India. In the case of Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai vs State of Gujrat it has been held that wilful perverted sexual acts with wife would amount to cruelty under 498A of the IPC because then the normal sexual relations which form the basis of a happy married life would come to a standstill and a husband having sexual intercourse with his wife is not using her just as her property but filling the marital consortium.

What we can discern from all these judgments is that sexual intimacy between the husband and wife is one of the major building blocks of their relationship. The kind of intimacy husband and wife want to have in their relationship needs to be thoroughly discussed and should be done with mutual consent of both of them. If the female is not willing to have any kind of perversion in their intimate life, then it is clearly her choice and she has all the rights to do so. Forcing her against her will, would amount to cruelty and eventually be violative of all the rights our virtuous constitution gives her.

The Way Forward

Therefore, it is high time that the polarity created between married and unmarried women by the statute needs to be done away with. The married daughters of our country need to have a life filled with dignity and respect; that the laws made to inoculate them do not act against them. Although, an act of caution has to be seen while enacting this provision. That is, men should not be at the receiving end of this new change in law. There has been an alarming rate of rise of false rape cases in India, because the only pre-requisite required to file a rape case is the statement of a women. Therefore, various innocent men in India suffer unknowingly that they might at the receiving end of section 375. What is to be seen is that after removal of exception 2, the section is handled with utmost care and precision which allows both men and women to be equally treated by the statute and that only genuine cases of marital rape come to the court retrenching its time and the value of the justice delivery system.

08/12/2024 0 comments 22 views

Indian Judiciary on Rape Cases

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Pooja Bhattacharjee

Rape has been defined under Section 375 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860), which states that rape is said to have been committed when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation, or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped or is of unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age. Rape is a form of gender-motivated violence in India. In the case of Sakshi v. UOI, the Supreme Court shed light on the definition of rape and held that only penial and vaginal penetration will be considered as rape within the purview of Section 375 of the IPC, thus narrowing down the scope of sexual intercourse as defined in the IPC. However, in 2012, a bench of justices Swatanter Kumar and Gyan Sudha Misra held that even if there is no penetration, it does not necessarily mean that there is no rape, while upholding the conviction of a man for raping a 11-year-old girl, despite there being no evidence of penetration. (The Hindu)

The Verma Committee had recommended that non penetrative acts against women, like stalking and groping, which are also a violation of woman’s bodily integrity and sexual autonomy, should be termed as sexual assault and be punished as rape. The legislature, however, did not accept the recommendation and retained the offence of ‘outraging the modesty of a woman,’ which is the provision under which all non-penetrative sexual acts continue to be prosecuted under Section 354 of the IPC. (THE WIRE)

To prove that consent was absent, the law’s aim should be to reduce ambiguity and alter definitions to mitigate the historic imbalance of credibility afforded to males but not to females. The most important factor to be determined in a rape is whether the woman consented to the sexual act. The law presumes that the accused is innocent. The burden is on the prosecution- victim to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent was absent. Under Section 375, ‘willingness to participate in the specific sexual act’ can be conveyed ‘through words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication.’ The focus is more often on if these ‘gestures’ occurred and not on what they meant.

Two recent cases shows that the Indian judiciary needs to be more sensitive in dealing with rape cases and not fall back on erstwhile sexist and misogynistic views that have emerged in numerous judgments.

In the Guahati Rape Case, the Gauhati High Court granted bail to Utsav Kadam, a 21-year-old accused of rape on the ground that the he is a talented student and is the state’s ‘future asset.’ The police had arrested the accused, a student of IIT Guwahati on April 3, for allegedly sexually assaulting a female student of the institute on March 28. The bench of Justice Ajit Borthakur in an order passed on 13 August granting bail to Utsav Kadam, observed, “as the investigation in the case is completed and both the victim and the accused are the state’s future assets being talented students pursuing technical courses at the I.I.T., Guwahati, who are young in the age group of 19 to 21 years only and further, they are being hailed from two different states, a continuation of detention of the accused in the interest of trial of the case, if charges are framed, may not be necessary”. The order was passed despite the fact that the court noted that there is a clear prima facie case against Kadam.

Last year, it was reported that a Civil Court in the Araria district of Bihar had sent a gang rape survivor to jail on grounds of disrupting court proceedings. Her only crime was having an emotional outburst and a nervous breakdown that emanated from the Court’s request to repeat her trauma over and over again. What seems to be a natural reaction for any rape survivor was misconstrued as ‘contempt of court’. The judiciary’s response to rape cases, specifically, rape survivors seem to fluctuate between insensitive and thoughtless to sexist and misogynistic. (ThePrint 2020)

In India, the class, and caste of the victim are used as means to discredit the victim. The colonizers used caste or class to gauge the reliability of the version of events stated by survivors and this is being continued to date. The rape adjudication cases in India involving a breach of promise to marry are also revealing. In Kunal Mandaliya v. State of Maharashtra.

Justice Mridula Bhatkar observed that an educated woman could not have been deceived, and thus was not raped on the pretext of marriage. The judgement read:

The prosecutrix at the time of filing the complaint was 30 years old and was nearly 25 to 26 years old when the first incident of sexual intercourse took place. Thus, she was aware of the consequences of keeping sexual relations with a man and she was also aware that there may be differences between two persons and they may find each other compatible. The girl was highly educated and also 25 years old. Therefore, the consent cannot be said to have been obtained by fraud.

The court’s comment on consent shows how in the absence of an affirmative standard, a negative standard invalidates the experience of the woman and improperly shifts the responsibility of the assault away from the perpetrator and onto the victim.

Marital rape refers to sexual intercourse with one’s spouse without their consent. Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that sexual intercourse by husband does not amount to rape, even if it’s by force. (Today 2021)

The law, as inhumane as it is, however, is being defended by some eminent jurists who are in favour of leaving the provision untouched in order to protect the ‘Indian family values.’ It is important to acknowledge, however, that those assigned the female sex at birth are not the only survivors of rape in India, often, nonconformity with gender boundaries not only functions as a basis for sex crimes, including rape but also makes it harder for survivors to seek help. Section 375 of the IPC only conceptualizes the perpetrator as male and the victim as female. Its exclusivity in nature leaves out a large section of society who are being violated and are left with no discourse of getting justice.

The status quo burdens victims and exonerates perpetrators of responsibility in sexual interactions. Indian statutes, legal decisions, and commentaries condemning rape primarily focus on it as a crime that lowers a woman’s dignity and scars her reputation, rather than a crime violative of a woman’s selfhood, individuality, or autonomy.

The accounting of traditional notions of what an ‘Indian woman’ is and their defined ‘behaviors’ are, should be discarded. Even though change is visible, an overturning of the current structures will be brought about through a normative reconstruction of our laws and our social rationality only when people realize why the current laws are problematic and ancient and understand why new amendments to these laws are necessary.

It is necessary to take legal recourse if you’ve been abused of sexual harassment or have witnessed someone getting abused. Consecutively, you can register your complaint at the National Commission for Women as investigations by the police will be expedited and monitored.

08/12/2024 0 comments 28 views

Marital Rape: A Social and Legal Paradox

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Vandana Bharti

Despite 75 years of independence, the social status of women in India still stands in shadows. Grievous crimes and alarming rates of pending cases portray the loopholes in the legal machinery of the Indian legal system. One such appalling act is that of Rape – where the dignity and self-respect of a woman is bruised beyond contemplation. When such an act occurs behind four-walls in a matrimonial home, it is known as Marital Rape. Where the spouse engages with his/her better half in a forceful, non-consensual sex it is termed as Marital Rape.

A legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman forms marriage. In India, the legality of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman gives the husband leverage to consider the consent of his wife perpetual in the course of marriage.

Indian Legislation On The Offence Of Rape:

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states – A man has committed rape if he had sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, with her consent but by putting her in danger or threatening her, with her consent whom she believes that she was lawfully wedded to, with her consent but the consent was given in an unconscious state, and with her consent when she is under 15 years of age. Nowhere does this specify the essential elements and the repercussions of committing marital rape.

As per Indian Penal Code, husband can be convicted on grounds of marital rape only when:

The wife is 15 years of age or below; and is punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years or fine, or both.
When the wife is below 12 years of age, offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to life or for a term extending up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Rape of a judicially separated wife, offence punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years and fine.
Rape of wife of above 15 years in age is not punishable.

Precedents In the Law

In the Harvinder Kaur v. Harmandar Singh case (AIR 1984 Delhi 66 ), the Delhi High Court stated that the interference of the Constitution in household matters would destroy the marriage.

The court stated, “In the privacy of the home and the married life neither Article 21 [No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law] nor Article 14 [The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India] have any place.”

In 2019, while introducing the ‘The Women’s Sexual, Reproductive and Menstrual Rights Bill, 2018’ Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament in the Lok Sabha, said, “‘Marital rape is not about sex, but about violence; it is not about marriage, but about lack of consent.”

Naval Rahul Shiralkar, Advocate at High Court of Bombay Judicature at Nagpur, said, “Courts have various methods to identify marital rape and have given strict punishments but due to the lack of a law against a crime like that, the judiciary is bound to not admit ‘forceful intercourse by a man upon his wife’ as marital rape.”

Shiralkar said that many of the marital rape cases went unreported in India. He added, “There are at least 5-6 cases reported every year in Nagpur Family Court which are pending litigation.”

Saranya S. Hegde, President of the Mahila Dakshata Samiti, Bangalore, said that husbands often thought that they could do everything with their wives because society and marital laws supported that. “The helpless and dependent suffer in silence.”

Hegde said, “If a woman goes to a [family] court, the judge often favours the husband and asks the wife to adjust.” In her more than 15 years of experience, Hegde said she had seen women committing suicide due to the mental torture they went through because of marital rapes and domestic violence.

Kamlesh Premi, Counsellor at home at the Centre for Social Research, said the court procedures took almost five or seven years. Having been a counsellor for more than 20 years, Premi said that the judiciary system was too lengthy.

First, the woman has to complain to the Crime against Women Cell and get counselled. Then if she wants, she has to file an FIR (First Information Report) under Section 498 (A) (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the IPC, which in itself is quite a lengthy procedure. And at the end, even after an investment of at least five years and financial resources, the court would either ask her to adjust or maybe get her a divorce with maintenance. Hence, a lot of women compromise or either go for mutual divorce. “Therefore, there is a lot of under-reportage for marital rapes,” she added.

“It is in rare cases that a wife asks for a divorce or maintenance,” Premi said. “The biggest problem is that the husbands treat wives as private property. They think they own her.”

Dr. Ratna Purwar, a gynaecologist in Lucknow, said women often complain about the presence of vaginal or anal wounds in such severity that could substantiate rape. She added that, when men are asked to abstain from forceful sex with their spouse, the most common answer is, “Why did I marry her then?”

The financial dependency of women becomes a prime reason for all the physical and verbal abuse endurance. It had become normal despite the mental health depletion and trauma. Marriages in India have the concept of ‘implicit consent’ to sex and women sadly or happily comply and do not report it.

In the Anuja Kapur vs Union of India Through Secretary case of 2019 (W.P. (C) – 258/2017) , a PIL was filed asking the Delhi High Court to make guidelines and laws on marital rape. The court replied that drafting of the laws was the work of the legislature and not the judiciary. “The court is more concerned with the interpretation of the law rather than the drafting of laws.”

In the Nimeshbhai Bharat Bhai Desai vs. State of Gujrat case of 2018 (2018 SCC OnLine Guj 732), the Gujarat High Court admitted that marital rape was not just a concept and the notion of ‘implied consent’ in marriage should be dropped. The law must protect bodily autonomy of every woman (married or unmarried).

However, in Independent Thought vs Union of India on October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court stated that sexual intercourse with a girl, below 18 years of age, was rape regardless of her marital status.

Supreme Court of India, in the case of Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800, read down Exception 2 to Section 375, IPC as being violative of Article 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution.

In 2017, the Daily reported a 2014 study by International Centre for Research on Women and United Nations Population Fund on 9,500 respondents in seven states of India. The report concluded that 17% of women received spousal violence while 31% (one in three) men admitted to committing sexual violence against their wives.

In 2016, Maneka Gandhi, then minister for child and women development, said that the ‘concept of marital rape’ that was understood internationally could not be applied to India considering the levels of illiteracy and poverty.

In 2016, the U.N. Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women recommended that marital rape be criminalized in India. After that recommendation, a question was raised in the upper house of Parliament asking what action had been taken. Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary, then minister of state for home, replied, “It is considered that the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors, including level of education, illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament.” This response was repeated literally by Minister Gandhi in the Parliament.

In the year 2015, the RIT Foundation filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court challenging the exemption of marital rape in Section 375 of the IPC. The challenge is on the basis of Article 14, Article 15 (a fundamental right prohibits discrimination by the state against any citizen on grounds ‘only’ of religion, caste, race, sex, and place of birth), Article 19 (freedom of speech which is the right to express one’s opinion freely without any fear through oral/ written/ electronic/ broadcasting/ press), and Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Justice Verma Committee report (2013) recommended the discarding of the exception of marital rape. Providentially, in November 2017 a division bench of the

The Law Commission of India in its 172nd Report considered the issue of marital rape, but chose to ignore the voices that demanded the deletion of Exception 2 to s. 375 IPC on the ground that “it may lead to excessive interference with marital relationship” and may destroy the institution of marriage.

In the 42^nd report by the Law Commission, it was proposed that criminal liability be attached to the intercourse of a spouse with his/her minor husband/wife. But the committee banished the recommendation stating that the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can never impose criminal liability on the husband as sex is the parcel in a marriage.

The Supreme Court, while deciding the issue of marital rape of girls below the age of 18 years, made certain observations and comments that are equally applicable and relevant to married women over 18 years of age.

One of the foremost issues is that of the right to bodily integrity and reproductive rights. While referring to various precedents, the Court found that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right, in effect, would include a woman’s right to refuse participation in sexual activity.

The Supreme Court also noted views expressed by the Justice (Retd.) JS Verma Committee, where reference was made to a decision of the European Commission of Human Rights which concluded that a rapist remains a “rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim”.

According to the 2015-16 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 31% of married women have experienced violence – physical or sexual. The NFHS reported that about 4% of women were forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to, 2.1% to perform sexual acts they did not want to, and 3% were threatened to perform sexual acts they did not want to.

In 2015, two separate pleas were submitted to the Supreme Court asking for the law to be amended by deleting the marital rape exception. In the first, the petitioner, a 28-year-old, had already filed charges against her husband for domestic violence (a civil, not criminal offense) as well as “cruelty.” She used her maiden name, Reema Gaur, to shield her identity.

She wanted to bring him to justice for repeatedly raping her. “The law as it stands today amounts to a state-sanctioned license granted to the husband to violate the sexual autonomy of his own lawfully wedded wife,” the plea stated.

Appearing on TV, heavily veiled, wearing spectacles that magnified her eyes, Gaur talked about her marriage. “Every night post the wedding was a nightmare for me. … He would never even ask my permission,” she said. “He used to beat me up, insert artificial [objects] in me. At some point I was in such a condition I was not even able to walk,” she said, her voice breaking with tears. On the night she decided to leave, she said, “He hit me 18 times on my head with a box and a torchlight. And then he inserted the torchlight in my vagina.“

Bleeding and in a semiconscious state, she called her mother for rescue. The bleeding lasted for two months. In the year she was married, when Gaur tried to talk to her in-laws and her parents, “The only thing they told me is, ‘Try to adjust.’ “

In 2014, Akash Gupta of the Rice Institute, a non-profit organisation reported, that the number of spousal violence received by the wives was 40 times more than that received by non-intimate partners.

Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj, a film maker and activist believe the state does not have the potency to support women if they are to seek divorce on grounds of marital rape. “It’s naive to say women have complete right of consent and rights over their body, when the truth is they’re dependent on their husbands for everything, financially, emotionally,” says Bhardwaj.

Trisha Shetty, founder of She Says, a website for information and action on sexual crimes against women argues that protection from Marital Rape is not a western issue that needs solving rather it is a basic human right. People in India are of the opinion that sexual abuse and marital rape only happens to the poor, the fallacy needs to be broken. “That whole assumption that you’re making laws for people who don’t understand is nonsense. Everyone understands the concept of consent, of saying, ‘No.’” says Trisha.

She Says and several NGOs, including Jagori (which in Hindi means “awaken, women!”), have organized workshops and other programs to help women speak out about the sexual abuse and rape. Online, there are additional resources, such as this Marathi language effort to educate about consent via two folk dancers having a musical discussion about the meaning of “yes” and “no.” The government has even set up an emergency hotline, staffed by women, to field calls from women who need police assistance as well as resources and instruction about their rights. In their first year, they received more than 600,000 calls from women, some describing assault and rape within their marriage.

Judicial Stand

In Bhodhisathwa Gautam v Subhra Chakraborthy (1996 AIR 922) it was held that marital rape is violative of Article 21; Right to live with human dignity. Supreme Court held that Rape is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of victim’s most cherished of the fundamental right. A married woman too has the right to live in human dignity, right to privacy and rights over her own body. Marriage can in no way take away these rights.

In Justice K.S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 , it was held that the right to privacy as a fundamental right includes decisional privacy reflected by an ability to make intimate decisions primarily consisting of one’s sexual or procreative nature and decisions in respect of intimate relations.

Uncovering the history of judicial decisions on infliction of serious injury by the husband on the wife the court in Queen Empress v Haree Mythee, (1891) ILR 18 Cal 49 observed that in case of married women, the law of rape does not apply between a couple after the age of the wife over 15 years of age, even if the wife is over the age of 15, the husband has no right to disdain her physical safety.

In Emperor v Shahu Mehrab (1911) ILR 38 Cal 96 the husband was convicted under Section 304A IPC for causing the death of his child-wife by rash or negligent act of sexual intercourse with her.

In State of Maharashtra v Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC 207, Supreme Court referred to the right to privacy over one’s body. It was decided that a prostitute had the right to refuse sexual intercourse. It is wistful to know that all sexual offences committed by a non-intimate or a stranger have been penalised and all females except wives have been granted their right over their bodies.

In Sree Kumar v Pearly Karun, 1999 (2) ALT Cri 77 High Court observed that because the wife is living under the same roof with that of her husband, with no decree of separation, even if she is subjected to consensual or non-consensual sexual intercourse, the offence under Section 376A of IPC will not be imposed.

The idea of spousal rape is fictious to the Indian Judiciary, despite the mental and physical trauma of the survivor.

International Statistics

Marital Rape has been declared illegal and a criminal offence in 18 American states, 3 Australian states, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia. A U.K. case of R v R changed the law to an extent that the courts ruled that even within a marriage, any non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

What can be done?

To help the victim surf the trauma, shelters can be provided as a temporary safe place to stay and the staff may help in the consideration of options available, legal aid services to offer free of cost legal services and advice, support groups to help the victim voice the upheaval. Articulate support for the enforcement of apt laws and for new legislation to curb sexual violence, education programmes and support initiatives at local, state and national level.

Conclusion:

The incessant exemption of marital rape from the ambit of criminal law succours the idea of wife being the property of the husband exclusively. Changing the laws on sexual offences needs to be tactful especially in a country like India where there is an existence of diverse and conglomerate personal and religious laws that might clash with the new amendments in the statutory criminal law. The immediate need of prohibiting and criminalizing marital rape is just not enough. Sensitization of judiciary and police along with educating the myriad believers of the airy concept of marital rape is required in order to acknowledge that the concept of spousal rape; getting raped by one’s spouse is not trivial, and definitely cannot go unpunished.

08/12/2024 0 comments 27 views

Load More Posts

sexual intercourse

Marital Rape Jurisprudence: Inconsistencies Reaffirming Cruelty Based on Age

Indian Judiciary on Rape Cases

Marital Rape: A Social and Legal Paradox

Editor's Pick

Featured

Popular Categories

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Are you sure want to cancel subscription?