By Binny Yadav
In February 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape or unnatural sex with his adult wife—regardless of her consent. Weeks later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a seemingly more progressive judgment—it held that forcing a wife into unnatural sexual acts against her will, and assaulting her when she resisted, amounts to “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. But in the same breath, it dismissed charges under Section 377 (unnatural offences), reinforcing the deeply entrenched belief that non-consensual sex within marriage is not a crime in India.
Taken together, these judgments paint a disturbing picture. In 2025, Indian courts continue to protect the institution of marriage more fiercely than the bodily autonomy of women. The message is unmistakable: marriage remains a legal sanctuary for forced sex. These are not careful interpretations of outdated law—they are, at best, constitutional evasions. At worst, they are judicial endorsements of conjugal coercion.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: RECOGNITION WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY
Justice GS Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at the Gwalior bench, acknowledged that compelling a wife to engage in unnatural sex against her will—and beating her for resisting—constitutes “cruelty”. On the surface, this recognition seems progressive. Yet it is profoundly hollow.
The Court declined to frame the husband under Section 377, the provision that criminalises non-consensual “unnatural” sexual acts, and limited culpability to cruelty under Section 498A and assault under Section 323. This is not a procedural footnote—it is a substantive erasure of a woman’s right to sexual autonomy.
The act remains the same: non-consensual sexual violence. But by refusing to acknowledge it as a sexual offence, the Court effectively reduced the crime to a domestic grievance. It’s the legal equivalent of calling torture an inconvenience. This is not justice—it is patriarchy dressed in judicial robes.
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT: CONSENT DOESN’T COUNT IF YOU’RE MARRIED
If the Madhya Pradesh ruling was a failure of courage, the February 2025 judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court was a failure of principle.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, presiding over a single-judge bench, stated plainly that a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape or unnatural sex with his wife. In doing so, the Court declared that consent—the cornerstone of sexual autonomy—is legally irrelevant once a woman is married.
This judgment didn’t just sidestep constitutional jurisprudence—it bulldozed it. Landmark verdicts such as KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) and Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018) firmly establish that a married woman retains her rights to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. Yet the Chhattisgarh High Court’s reasoning suggests otherwise—that a wife becomes a perpetual consent-giver the moment she says “I do.”
This ruling doesn’t just reflect patriarchal assumptions—it codifies them. It sets a dangerous precedent: that any form of sex—forced, degrading, violent—within marriage is legally protected. In effect, the Court turned marriage into a license for impunity.
THE ILLUSION OF PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 498A
Defenders of the Madhya Pradesh verdict may argue that the wife at least has legal recourse under Section 498A. But this argument is deeply disingenuous.
Section 498A is designed to address domestic cruelty, often in the context of dowry harassment. It is not equipped to deal with sexual violence. By reducing marital rape to cruelty, the law effectively says: what would be a criminal offence outside marriage is merely a matrimonial dispute within it.
This is not just flawed legal reasoning—it is a grotesque miscarriage of justice. It tells women: the system may acknowledge your pain, but it will not punish your perpetrator.
Worse, Section 498A often leads to drawn-out litigation, endless mediation, and pressure to “settle.” The focus shifts from justice to reconciliation—a cruel irony when the crime itself stems from betrayal and violence.
MARRIAGE AS LEGAL IMMUNITY
What unites both judgments is their reaffirmation of the marital rape exception under Section 375 of the IPC, which explicitly states that sex by a man with his wife (if she is not under 18) is not rape. This colonial-era clause has long outlived its rationale. Most modern democracies have abolished this exception, recognising that marriage does not imply irrevocable consent.
But in India, this archaic belief continues to thrive—in legislation and in courtrooms. Instead of challenging this injustice, these judgments fortify it. Marriage, once again, becomes a legal shield—protecting men from accountability and rendering women invisible in their own stories of violation.
A CONSTITUTIONAL BETRAYAL
These are not merely judicial missteps; they are betrayals of the Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this includes the right to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. Sexual autonomy is central to this promise.
A legal regime that allows a husband to rape his wife with impunity cannot coexist with these constitutional values. It mocks every woman who dares to say “no” within her marriage. It reinforces the idea that her body, once married, is not her own—but a site of conjugal obligation.
WHAT INDIA NEEDS: CRIMINALISATION, NOT COMPROMISE
In 2013, the Justice Verma Committee, formed in the wake of the brutal Delhi gang rape, strongly recommended removing the marital rape exception. It warned that millions of Indian women would remain legally unprotected unless the law changed.
Twelve years later, the legislature has yet to act. And the judiciary, bound by regressive laws and societal conservatism, continues to pass judgments that perpetuate injustice.
What we need now is not legal ingenuity or incrementalism—but political will. The marital rape exception under Section 375 must go. Consent must be upheld as valid, revocable, and universal, regardless of marital status. Forced sex must be recognised for what it is—rape.
CONCLUSION: NO MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE SHOULD NULLIFY CONSENT
The recent rulings by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are not just disappointing—they are dangerously regressive. They reaffirm a legal system that continues to treat a wife’s body as her husband’s entitlement, not her own.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court may have acknowledged cruelty, but it stopped short of calling it what it truly is: sexual violence. The Chhattisgarh High Court went even further, dismissing the very idea of consent within marriage.
In both cases, the courts chose to protect the sanctity of marriage over the sanctity of a woman’s autonomy.
In 2025, it is indefensible that Indian law still tells women that once married, their right to say “no” no longer exists. The time for half-measures is over. Consent must not be a casualty of tradition.
No wedding vow should ever silence a scream.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator