Constitutionality of Section 375, Exception 2, the IPC & Effect of Marital Rape on Family

Abstract

‘Rape’ word had been derived from the Latin word ‘Rapio', which denotes making sexual intercourse by force. Any action by force is the antithesis of the right to a dignified life. Any woman should not be denied basic human rights in the guise of a marital relationship. Wives think that family is the safest place in the world. She comes with a lot of hope and is under the expectation that she will start a new life. But her husband has sex with force without her consent, and she dies each and every moment. Marital rape is more heinous than rape. The most reliable person commits marital rape. Such rape not only destroys the hope and life of the wife but also affects other family members and the development of the family. Unfortunately, Indian wives under social pressure, the future of children, and economic dependency don't raise their voices against marital rape. Few wives had raised their voices against this issue. John Rideout was accused of rape with his wife, Greta. Media coverage of this case raised many questions regarding marital rape. Many countries had removed protection for husbands. The journey of marital rape from Hale to Keith had been changed. 

Justice J.S. Verma recommended the abolition of protection available to husbands under Section 375. Indian Supreme Court in Independent Thought Case had modified provisions of marital rape and held that 15 years must be read as 18 years. In Mr Hrishikesh Sahoo and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors High Court of Karnataka observed that the husband is not the ruler of the body of the wife, and she is not a sex slave. But it was left for legislative bodies to decide whether or not forcefully sexual intercourse between spouses should amount to marital rape.

Delhi High Court decided RIT Foundation Case and delivered split judgment regarding Section 375, Exception 2. In this paper, the author will search for the constitutional validity of this provision.