The Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday acquitted a husband previously convicted on charges related to rape and unnatural sexual acts with his wife. The bench, headed by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, held that even in instances of so-called “unnatural sex,” a wife cannot allege rape or any unnatural act committed by her husband, provided she is an adult. This ruling, grounded in judicial interpretation and established precedent, has sparked intense debate over the legal treatment of marital intimacy and consent.

The case originated in December 2017 when a woman from Jagdalpur’s Bodhghat area registered a complaint against her husband, alleging that he had forcibly engaged in an unnatural sexual act against her will. According to the complaint, the assault led to severe physical deterioration, and the woman was subsequently hospitalised, later succumbing to her injuries. The trial court convicted the husband under Sections 376, 377, and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment for non-intentional homicide along with charges related to sexual misconduct. However, on appeal, the High Court reversed the conviction and ordered his immediate release, asserting that marital intercourse when conducted between consenting adults cannot constitute rape under the current legal framework.

Advertisement

Justice Vyas, delivering the judgment, emphasised that the act in question involved the use of body parts normally employed in sexual relations. He clarified that the law does not consider a married woman’s consent to be a significant factor when both parties are adults, except in cases where the wife is below the age of 15. The ruling, which referenced relevant Supreme Court precedents, thereby narrowed the ambit of prosecutable offenses under sections pertaining to marital sexual relations.

The decision has ignited polarised responses among legal experts, women’s rights activists, and civil society at large. Critics argue that the judgment undermines the rights of married women by effectively nullifying the legal recourse available to them in instances of coercion or abuse. “This ruling sets a troubling precedent – it essentially sidelines the issue of consent within marriage for adult women and reinforces an outdated legal interpretation,” said legal analyst Shreya Mukherjee.

Conversely, proponents contend that the judgment aligns with long-established jurisprudence that presumes mutual consent in the marital relationship, cautioning that any deviation could upend the sanctity and stability of matrimonial norms.

In the wake of the verdict, several human rights organisations have called for a thorough re-examination of the legal provisions governing marital sexual relations. They argue for clearer statutory definitions that distinguish between consensual marital conduct and genuine cases of abuse. As debates intensify, the High Court’s decision is expected to prompt further legal challenges, potentially reshaping the contours of marital rights and consent in India.