The Allahabad High Court noted that the “safeguard against accusations of marital rape persists when the wife is 18 years old or older.” The court also referenced the verdict in the Independent Thought Vs Union of India (2017) case, in which the Supreme Court determined that any sexual intercourse between a man and his wife, if she is aged between 15 to 18 years, would constitute rape.

While exonerating a husband accused of “unnatural sex” with his wife under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra pointed out that the components of unnatural sex, as defined in Section 377 IPC, are incorporated into Section 375 (a) IPC, as stated by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its ruling, stated that Section 375 of the IPC, which pertains to rape and was amended by the 2013 Amendment Act, covers all potential aspects of penile penetration. The court further stated that when consent is not a factor, the possibility of Section 377 of the IPC being invoked, which pertains to sexual acts between a husband and wife, is null.

The high court stated that upon examination of the aforementioned ruling, it is evident that the safeguard against marital rape remains in effect for women who are 18 years of age or older.

However, the court upheld his conviction and punishment for offenses under section 498A (dowry harassment) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

In 2013, the individual was charged under sections 498A, 323, 504, and 377 of the IPC, as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act in Ghaziabad. Following his conviction by the Ghaziabad trial court, the appellate court affirmed the verdict. Subsequently, he submitted a revision petition.

The high court observed that the appellate court’s verdict of guilt under section 323, 498-A IPC was devoid of any factual or legal mistakes, NDTV reported.

The court acknowledged that there are ongoing petitions before the Supreme Court advocating for the criminalisation of marital rape. However, until a verdict is reached on these petitions, the court clarified that there are no criminal consequences for such actions when the victim is a wife aged 18 or older.

In its verdict dated 6 December, the court highlighted that the medical proof presented in the case did not substantiate claims of unnatural sexual acts. Furthermore, the court pointed out that in the forthcoming Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, which is set to supersede the IPC, there is no equivalent provision to Section 377 IPC.

The accusation of marital cruelty leveled against the person seeking revision has been confirmed in this case. This is further supported by the family court’s findings when granting the divorce petition, and by this court during the appeal process, which upheld the divorce decree against the person seeking revision.