Marital rape, which is not even considered as a rape by many people out there in our society. They do not take into consideration the will and wish of a woman if she is comfortable and ready to have sexual intercourse with her partner. It is called a marital rape when husband does not care about his wife’s consent.
Recently, a remark given by the Supreme Court has raised
a topic of debate. The Court has stated that when a man and a woman live as a
husband and a wife, the act of sexual intercourse between them could not be
called rape.
This remark was given by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde
when the Court was listening to the petition filed by a man who was accused of
rape by a woman, he was living with for two years. They were in a live-in
relationship. Woman filed an FIR against him after he got married to another
woman.
In her FIR, she complained that they were living under a
same roof but she denied entering into a sexual relationship till they get
married. She claimed that her consent was “obtained by fraud” and they got married
in February 2014 at Hidimba Temple in Manali. She filed the case for offences
under Section 376, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
One the other hand, the husband remained assertive that
no such marriage ritual took place and the live-in relationship was consensual.
Both of them presented their side of stories and remained adamant to prove
themselves right. CJI, after hearing the claims and allegations of both the
parties, responded by saying-
“Making a false promise
of marriage is wrong. No one should falsely promise marriage and break off. But
that is different from saying that the act of sexual intercourse is rape.”
When woman alleged the man for brutally exploiting her
and that on some occasions, she even had to visit the hospital for the
treatment of the injuries on private parts of the body. Listening to this
accusation raised by the woman, CJI asked-
"Then you file a case for assault and marital cruelty. Why file a
rape case?"
Woman was represented by advocate Aditya Vashishtnath
and advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija appeared on the behalf of the accused. On the
behalf of the accused man, advocate Dutta responded that this is the habit of
the lady and she had committed such act earlier as well.
In the petition filed by the accused, it was alleged
that the representative told the accused’s wife to “kill him” because doing so
will benefit her and she could lead a happy life. The accused contended that
she filed an FIR because he refused to give her money.
The Court gave the decision that they can give
protection to the accused for four weeks until he appears with the evidence and
said that he can file for the discharge from the case but denied his request to
quash the FIR.
Written By - Somya Jain
Edited By - Tushna Choksey
Social