Having Intercourse With Wife Against Her Wishes, Is Not Illegal: Mumbai Court

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• In her complaint, the woman mentioned that she got married to the Wadala resident last November.
• Immediately after marriage, her husband and in-laws started imposing restrictions on her.
• She alleged that they started demanding for money and when she failed to meet their demands, they started ill-treating her.
• Further she alleged that, after one month of their marriage, her husband forced himself into her, without her consent.
• Again, when they went to Mahabaleshwar in January, he had intercourse with her against her wish, following which she fell ill.
• She added that after returning from Mahabaleshwar, when she went to see a doctor, where she was informed that she had suffered paralysis below the waist.

THE POLICE COMPLAINT

• The Wadala TT police booked the man, his brother and brother’s wife, sister and her husband under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, after the complaint of the lady was registered.
• All the accused moved the Sessions Court requesting for anticipatory bail, and claimed that there was no demand for money nor any harassment was done to the complainant, and that they were being falsely implicated.
• The accused mentioned the fact that his sister stayed at Ratnagiri and visited his house for two days while his wife was around.

RELATED PROVISIONS

• Section 498 A of IPC: It states that if the husband or any relative of the husband subjects the woman to any kind of cruelty, it would lead to punishment or fine.
• Section 323 of IPC: This Section lays down the punishment for whoever causes voluntary hurt to others.
• Section 504 of IPC: It lays down the punishment for anyone who intentionally provokes or commits any offence which would break the public peace.
• Section 506 (2) of IPC: This Section states that whoever does the offence of criminal intimidation would be imprisoned or fined.

OBSERVATION MADE BY THE COURT

• The bail pleas were opposed by the police, but the Additional Sessions judge, Sanjashree Gharat, granted relief to all the five accused with furnishing a personal bond of ₹15,000 each with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• With regards to the woman’s allegation of forcible intercourse, the Court observed that a husband having intercourse with his wife, against her will, cannot be held as illegal.
• Although the Court grieves over the unfortunate paralysis the young girl had to go through, but for this matter, the applicants cannot be held liable.
• On the allegations of dowry demand, the judge noted that, although the complainant claimed she was being ill-treated and harassed for dowry, she never specified how much money was being demanded from her.

OTHER RELEVANT JUDGEMENTS

• The Supreme Court in its judgement had observed that in a marriage, a man and woman are equals and the woman also has a right to privacy. No one is allowed to invade her privacy as and when he likes. If there is an attempt to violate her privacy against her wishes, she is entitled to protect herself. There would be equal protection of law.
• In a Gujarat High Court judgement, Justice JB Pardiwala had observed, a woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated practices labelled her to be. A wife is not being used as a property by her husband when he tries to have intercourse with her, he’s fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He can’t be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her free consent.

DO YOU THINK JUSTICE WAS DONE IN THIS CASE?