MARITAL RAPE READ WITH KARNATAKA HC OBSERVATIONS

CASE: Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs. The State of Karnataka

The Karnataka HC rejected the petition filed by the Husband. He argued that the charge, under S. 375 of the IPC, cannot be framed against him because of the exception 2 envisaged under S. 375 itself excepting marital rape from the offence of rape. The court established that this exception cannot be absolute.

S. 375 of IPC, which provides for the offence of Rape, also provides for an exception, which is as follows:

“Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.”
Therefore, the above exception subjects the same woman to a different part of the provision once she is married.

A woman is given a particular status before the law, and when gets married becomes a wife and is given a different status. Similarly, a man is punished for his acts but if the same man is married is given exemptions from his acts. This concept destroys the soul of the constitution. The soul that is envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution as the Right to Equality.

Presently, this exception is being challenged in the Delhi High Court through a number of petitions.

Case facts:

The wife (complainant) filed a complaint against her husband for the offence of Rape under S. 376 and for the unnatural offence under S. 377 of IPC. On complaint, the Special court took cognizance of the case and framed the charges against the husband (petitioner) for the following offences punishable under Ss 376, 498A and 506 of the Code. Moreover, aggrieved by this, the husband knocked on the door of the High Court to have the court issue a writ of certiorari.

Primary Argument:

Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha representing the accused argued that a husband is exempted according to the provision of S. 375 of IPC. Therefore, the preliminary question before the Karnatak HC was whether cognizance being taken against the petitioner(husband) for an offence punishable under S. Moreover, S.376 of IPC is maintainable in law.

Findings:

The Karnataka HC said that the court is not deciding on the matter of whether marital rape should be recognized as an offence, as it will be for the legislature to decide it. He further added that-

” this court is concerned only with the charge of rape being framed upon the husband alleging rape on his wife.” punishment under S. 376 of IPC.

Blog By: Shimona Singh Kulhara

For more blogs reach us at www.vidhikshiksha.com
New blog: Right to Information