Recent Judgment Passed On Martial Rape

The question of marital rape being an offence in India is a complex and widely debated topic. While sexual intercourse without consent is recognized as rape under Indian law, an exception exists for sexual acts between a husband and wife, provided the wife is above a certain age. Recent judicial pronouncements reveal a nuanced and evolving legal landscape, with some courts acknowledging the inherent violation of bodily autonomy involved in marital rape, while others adhere to the existing legal exception.

Is Marital Rape An Offence In India?

Marital rape is a non-consensual sexual intercourse between married couples. To date, marital rape is criminalized in India. Section 375 (Section 63, BNS) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines rape but contains an exception for sexual intercourse by a man with his wife if the wife is not below 15 years of age. The IPC was repealed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A family health survey states nearly 1 in 3 women suffered marital sexual and physical violence.

The BNS made certain changes to the existing provisions of the IPC. It has increased the age of a wife from 15 years to 18 years. This implies that sexual intercourse without consent with a wife who is under 18 years of age is rape according to BNS.

Recent Judgements On Marital Rape

Let’s look into some of the recent judgements related to marital rape:

Gorakhnth Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025)

This judgement of the Chattisgarh High Court is as follows: 

Facts Of The Case

The appellant, Gorakhnth Sharma, was the spouse of the victim. The appellant allegedly had unnatural sex with the victim against her will. He allegedly inserted his hand into her anus and caused her pain. The victim recounted the incident to her sister and neighbours and was then admitted to Maharani Hospital for treatment. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded before a Magistrate, where she asserted that she fell sick because of rape by her husband. After giving the dying declaration. The victim died in the hospital. After the death of the victim, a report was filed at the Police Station. The Police filed a case under Section 377 of the IPC. 

Decision Of The Trial Court

The Additional Session Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 304, 376, and 377 of the IPC. The Additional Session Judge awarded a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine for every section to the appellant. The sentences were to run concurrently.

Decision Of The High Court

The High Court held that, in light of the marital connection between the victim and the accused, sections 376 and 377 of the IPC were inapplicable. This was inferred on the strength of the altered definition of Section 375 IPC (defining rape) as well as on the exception within it for sex between husband and wife. The court also took into account the Supreme Court's ruling in Navtej Singh Johar, which legalised consensual unnatural sex, affirming that Section 377 IPC cannot be applied in cases of consensual acts.

X vs. State of Uttrakhand & Anr. (2024)

This case was decided by the Uttarakhand High Court. The key issue of this case was habitual unnatural sex and harassment by a husband to the wife. Ultimately, after the analysis of the arguments, pieces of evidence and legal provisions, the High Court held that the anal sex between the petitioner and his wife falls under Exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC.  Therefore, the husband was not held liable under Section 375 of the IPC. Consequently, Section 377 IPC cannot be invoked against him.

Manish Sahu v The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

In this case, Sahu's wife, Smt. Sunita Sahu, had lodged an FIR against him on charges of having committed the offences under Sections 377 (unnatural offences) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The FIR stated that Manish Sahu had indulged in unnatural sex with her several times and warned her of getting divorced if she revealed this information. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that even if the wife's allegations were accepted at face value, no offence under Section 377 of the IPC would be established. The court held that if a wife is living with her husband at the time of a valid marriage, any sexual intercourse or sexual act is not rape if the wife is above the age of fifteen years. In such a situation, the lack of consent of the wife to an unnatural act becomes irrelevant.

The court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar case, which legalized consensual homosexual sex between consenting adults of the same gender. The High Court said that consent from both sides is required to remove the act from the ambit of Section 377 of IPC. Yet, the court mentioned that such consideration becomes irrelevant in the case of a husband and wife living together, owing to the exception that has been carved under Section 375 of the IPC.

S vs. State of Maharashtra (2024)

In this case, the Bombay High Court held that consensual sex with a minor wife is rape. 

Dilip Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh (2021)

This ruling was decided by the Chattisgarh High Court. This case also deals with marital rape in India. The Court referred to the Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC. The court observed that the complainant was lawfully wedded to applicant No. 1. As such, any sexual intercourse between them would not be rape even if it were forced or unwilling. Yet, the charges under Section 377 of the I.P.C. (unnatural offences) were upheld by the court based on the report of the complainant that her husband had committed unnatural bodily intercourse with her by putting fingers and radish into her private parts. The court held that the allegations made by the complainant justified the charge under Section 377, where the predominant intention of the offender was to achieve unnatural sexual gratification.

Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai vs. State Of Gujarat (2018)

In this case, the Gujarat High Court held that marital rape is not a crime in Indian law. The court observed that the exception given to marital rape is based on an archaic idea of marriage, under which wives belonged to their husbands as property. The Court suggested that marital rape should be a crime. The law has to safeguard the bodily integrity of all women irrespective of whether they are married or not. The court further indicated that the law of domestic violence is already inclusive of physical and sexual abuse as its foundation for intervention.

Conclusion

The legal status of marital rape in India is a debatable issue. With the introduction of BNS in 2023, increased age of consent within marriage has been introduced, still, it does not address the concept of marital rape. Recent court judgments reveal a divergence of opinions, with some courts upholding the exception based on existing legal provisions, while others express a growing recognition of the injustice inherent in the concept of marital rape.