In a landmark ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that no case can be made out under IPC Section 377 (concerning unnatural sex) between a husband and wife. The court emphasized that there is no restriction on a married couple from going beyond conventional sex. This decision came while quashing an FIR filed against Congress MLA Umang Singhar by his wife, who accused him of engaging in unnatural sex.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, in his judgment, remarked,
“Sexual pleasure is an integral part of a husband and wife’s bonding with each other. Ergo, in my opinion, no barrier can be put in the alpha and omega of sexual relationship between the husband and his wife.“
He further elaborated on the amended definition of Section 375, stating that the offence of 377 between a husband and wife has no place and is not made out. He added,
“As per the amended definition, if offender and victim are husband and wife, then consent is immaterial and no offence under section 375 is made out and as such there is no punishment under section 376 of IPC.“
The court also delved into the definition of ‘rape’ under Section 375 and noted that consent is not necessary for sexual acts between spouses. Thus, no unnatural offence could be established in relation to sexual acts between spouses. Justice Dwivedi further commented on the nature of sexual relations, stating that if procreation is viewed as the sole purpose of such relations, then a marital relationship would be rendered useless if the spouses are unable to procreate. He emphasized that the conjugal relationship between a husband and wife includes love, intimacy, compassion, and sacrifice.
The court’s judgment also highlighted that the petitioner, Singhar, is a tribal, and the complainant was aware of his marital status. Yet, she married him as his second wife following ‘Adivasi’ customs. Their relationship soured after some time, leading to complaints against each other. The FIR was lodged without specifying the date, time, and place of the alleged offence. The judge concluded that the complaint seemed to be a malicious prosecution stemming from a dispute between the couple.
In this case, the husband was accused by his wife of engaging in unnatural sexual acts. However, the court, after hearing both sides, determined that the husband’s actions did not constitute an offence under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape) and Section 377 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature) of the IPC.
This ruling sheds light on the evolving understanding of marital relationships and the legal implications surrounding them. It underscores the importance of mutual respect and understanding in marital bonds, emphasizing that the essence of such relationships goes beyond mere procreation.
