The Gujarat High Court ruled that forced “unnatural sex” within marriage, without consent, causes severe physical, mental, and emotional trauma. The Court emphasized that marriage does not imply automatic sexual consent and upheld the need for custodial interrogation in serious abuse allegations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
GUJARAT: In an observation, the Gujarat High Court has held that physical intimacy between married couples must be consensual and mutually respectful, and that forced “unnatural sex” by a spouse causes severe physical, mental, and emotional trauma.
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, while rejecting an anticipatory bail plea filed by a husband accused of dowry harassment, physical cruelty, and sexual abuse, clarified that marriage does not amount to automatic or perpetual sexual consent.
The Court categorically stated:
“Intimacy is normal between every married couple; however, the same has to be a consensual and mutually respectful act. Having unnatural sex by any spouse against the will and wish of the other partner not only causes immense physical pain but also mental and emotional trauma.”
The Court further acknowledged that modern legal frameworks recognise bodily freedom and sexual autonomy even within a marital relationship, moving away from outdated notions that treat marriage as blanket consent.
Background of the Case
The accused husband married the complainant in February 2022 in Delhi. According to the prosecution, the marriage soon turned abusive, with the complainant alleging that she was subjected to persistent dowry demands, physical violence, and mental cruelty.
She further alleged that her husband repeatedly forced her to engage in “unnatural sex” against her will and, on certain occasions, attempted to burn her private parts with lit cigarettes. Serious allegations of sexual abuse were also levelled against the father-in-law. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered in October 2025 at the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City.
The complainant, a law graduate and Chartered Accountant, alleged continuous abuse spanning over two years.
Husband’s Defence
The accused, a business tycoon and multi-millionaire based in Gurugram, argued that:
- The FIR was a counterblast to a divorce petition he had filed in May 2024.
- There was a delay in lodging the FIR.
- Allegations were vague and exaggerated.
- Photographs and WhatsApp messages suggested a cordial relationship.
- Custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
ALSO READ: Denying Intimacy in Marriage: Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Explained
Court’s Findings
Rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the accused, the Court observed that the FIR discloses serious and grave allegations of physical and sexual violence. The WhatsApp conversations placed on record revealed the use of abusive, hostile, and threatening language, reflecting the aggressive mindset of the applicant.
The Court held that the accusations could not be brushed aside as routine or exaggerated matrimonial allegations, noting that they appeared to go well beyond ordinary marital discord. The Court also took note of the fact that the applicant’s first wife had levelled similar allegations, which prima facie indicated a recurring pattern of conduct.
The Court observed:
“No woman in a civilised society would come forward to disclose such sensitive abuse unless it crosses the threshold of tolerance.”
The Court held that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary for the purpose of recovering crucial evidence, including electronic devices and hard disks allegedly containing intimate photographs of the complainant, as well as her jewellery, stridhan, personal belongings, and official documents, which were stated to be in the possession of the accused persons.
The Court further observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would adversely affect the investigation.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, while clarifying that observations made would not prejudice the trial or a future regular bail application.
Appearance:
For the accused: Senior Advocate Yatin Oza and advocate Sudhir Walia, Aditya Gupta, Harshal Baradia and Neeharika Walia
For the complainant: Senior Advocate Jal Unwalla and Advocate Bomi H Shethna
For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Soham Joshi
Case Title:
KARAN DALJIT GAMBHIR S/O DALJI GAMBHIR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 26922 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT
