HRISHIKESH SAHOO V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. SLP(CRL) NO. 4063-4064/2022
Facts: The petitioner, Accused No. 1, married the complainant, Mrs. Bratati @ Pinky, on 20.06.2006. The couple had a child, but their relationship deteriorated due to physical and mental abuse by the husband. As a result, the wife filed a complaint on 21.03.2017, leading to FIR No. 13/2017 for offenses under Sections 506, 498A, 323, 377 of the IPC, and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The case is now being heard by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, addressing the constitutional validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (restitution of conjugal rights).
Issue:Whether the criminalization of marital rape exists to protect married women against sexual violence, thereby making it an offense of "rape."
Observation: The Court rejected the husband's petition to drop charges of rape under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC, asserting that Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, which exempts marital rape, cannot be applied in this case. The Court noted that the common law doctrine of coverture, which presumed a wife’s consent to intercourse with her husband, is outdated. The Union of India, in its affidavit, argued that criminalizing marital rape could be "excessively harsh" and that alternative legal remedies already exist to protect married women. The government also contended that marital rape should be treated differently from other forms of rape, as it involves the institution of marriage, and falls within legislative policy. While conceding that marriage does not obliterate consent, the Centre argued that the consequences of violating consent within marriage should differ from those outside it.
