MP High Court: Forcing Unnatural Sex on Wife and Assaulting Her Is Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that forcing unnatural sex on a wife and assaulting her for resisting amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC. However, it does not fall under Section 376 or 377 IPC.

Unnatural Sex Without Wife’s Consent Is a Crime, Even in Marriage: Rules Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a husband forcing unnatural sex on his wife without her consent is punishable under Section 377 IPC. The Court upheld a wife’s right to dignity and sexual autonomy, even in marriage.

“As Expeditiously as Possible, Preferably Within Six Months”: Delhi HC Directs Centre to Address Exclusion of ‘Unnatural Offences’ in BNS

Today, On 28th August, The Delhi High Court gave the Centre six months to address the exclusion of ‘unnatural offences’ from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), expressing concern over non-consensual acts no longer being punishable. The absence of equivalent provisions in the BNS to address such acts has faced criticism. The Court instructed the government to make a decision within six months.

Husband’s Unnatural Sex With Wife Not Amount To Rape: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that engaging in unnatural sex with one’s spouse does not constitute rape under Indian law, as marital rape is not recognized. The decision has sparked debates on marital rape and the importance of consent in matrimonial relationships, highlighting the need for legal reforms to address gaps in existing laws and ensure comprehensive protection against sexual violence within marriage.

Unnatural Sex With Cow | HC Grants Bail to the Accused Man

The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to Ram Khelawan, a 70-year-old man accused of unnatural sexual acts with a cow. The court considered the seriousness of the charges, potential punishment, and lack of concerns regarding flight or witness intimidation. The defense argued the accused’s innocence and lack of criminal history, while the State counsel’s counterarguments were deemed insubstantial.