Woman Loses In Court After Suing Her Husband for R3pe

A woman has lost in court after suing her husband for alleged r3pe.

An Indian judge dismissed the complaint of the woman who claimed that her husband committed “unnatural s3x,”.

The judge said it is not illegal for a husband to force his wife to engage in s3xual acts under the Indian law.

The ruling, made in the Madhya Pradesh High Court last week, highlighted a legal loophole in India that doesn’t criminalise marital r3pe by a husband against his wife if she’s over age 18, CNN reports.

The woman told police her husband came to her house in 2019, soon after they were married, and committed “unnatural s3x,” under Section 377 of India’s penal code, according to the Madhya Pradesh High Court order.

The offence includes non-consensual “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal,” and was historically used to prosecute same-s3x couples who engaged in consensual s3x before the Supreme Court decriminalized homos3xuality in 2018

The woman also alleged the act happened “on multiple occasions,” and that her husband had threatened to divorce her if she told anyone about it. She finally came forward after telling her mother, who encouraged her to file a complaint in 2022, the court heard.

Meanwhile, the husband challenged his wife’s complaint with his lawyer claiming that any “unnatural s3x” between the couple was not criminal as they were married.

Delivering his judgement, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia stressed India’s marital r3pe exemption, which does not make it a crime for a man to force s3x on his wife, a relic of British rule more than 70 years after independence.

 

“When r3pe includes insertion of penis in the mouth, urethra or anus of a woman and if that act is committed with his wife, not below the age of fifteen years, then the consent of the wife becomes immaterial … Marital r3pe has not been recognized so far,” the judge said.

India’s Supreme Court increased marital consent from the age of 15 to 18 in a landmark judgment in 2017.

The woman also accused her in-laws of mental and physical harassment “on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry,” the court order said. A trial is pending.

Ahluwalia’s remarks have once again raised questions over India’s treatment of women, who continue to face the threat of violence and discrimination in the deeply patriarchal society.

The world’s largest democracy of 1.4 billion has made significant strides in enacting laws to better safeguard women, but lawyers and campaigners say its reluctance to criminalize marital r3pe leaves women without adequate protection.

According to the 2019-2021 National Family Health Survey by the Government of India, 17.6% of more than 100,000 women ages 15-49 surveyed said they were unable to say no to their husband if they didn’t want s3x, while 11% thought husbands were justified in hitting or beating his wife if she refused.

Women alleging r3pe in India have some avenues of potential legal action against their husbands.

For example, they can seek a restraining order under civil law or charges under Section 354 of India’s Penal Code, which covers s3xual assault short of r3pe, and Section 498A, which covers domestic violence.

These laws are open to interpretation and judges can use them to impose prison sentences for s3xual assault in cases where a married woman has alleged r3pe, but many don’t, lawyer Karuna Nundy previously told CNN.

Many married women are also ignored when they try to file a police complaint, a 2022 study showed.

The study examined records from three Mumbai public hospitals from 2008 to 2017 and found that of 1,664 r3pe survivors, no r3pe cases were filed by police. At least 18 of those women reported marital r3pe to the police, including 10 women who alleged r3pe by a former partner or husband.

Four women were explicitly told by police that they could not do anything as marital r3pe was not a crime, the report said.

Over the years, Campaigners have been trying to change the law but said they’re up against conservatives who argue that state interference could destroy the tradition of marriage in India.