Bhopal, (Samajweekly) Congress MLA Umang Singhar has got a major relief as the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against him filed by his wife for unnatural sex.
The court ruled that a husband cannot be liable for non-consensual “unnatural sex” with his wife, observing that the relationship between the husband and wife cannot be confined to their sexual relationship only for the purpose of procreation.
The court said that Section 375, which defines “rape” under the IPC excludes marital sexual relations from its purview.
The further stated that a husband cannot be held liable under Section 377 of IPC for non-consensual “unnatural” since Indian law presently does not recognise marital rape.
Congress MLA Singhar had filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR registered on the fulcrum of a complaint made by his wife against him for the offences punishable under several sections of the IPC.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ordered to quash FIR citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Navtej Singh Johar case, wherein the top court had ruled that a consensual sexual relation between homosexual persons is not a crime.
“When same act as per the definition of Section 375 is not an offence, then how it can be treated to be an offence under Section 377 of the IPC,” the Court said.
“If anything raises their longing towards each other giving them pleasure and ascends their pleasure then it is nothing uncustomary and it can also not be considered to be unnatural that too when Section 375 IPC includes all possible parts of penetration of penis by a husband to his wife,” the Court’s order read.
The court also observed that “sexual relationship between the husband and wife is the key to a happy connubial life and that cannot be restricted to the extent of sheer procreation”.
“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 order said.
The Court also noted that both parties were members of the same political party who had married after a longstanding relationship.
However, when their relationship deteriorated, both parties filed complaints against each other.
The Court proceeded to also dismiss allegations leveled by the wife against the husband concerning offences under Section 294 (obscene acts or songs) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, terming it to be a malicious prosecution.
Further, the Court also found that there was no allegation of any dowry demand to allege the commission of an offence under Section 498A (cruelty to woman) IPC.
