Read Time: 04 minutes
The court was hearing a plea challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court wherein it was held that a brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, even by the husband should be considered rape.
A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Justice NV Ramana, today stayed the order of Karnataka High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered against husband by his wife alleging rape.
The bench, also consisting of Justices Krishna Muruari and Hima Kohli, was hearing a plea challenging the judgment of the Karnataka High Court wherein it was held that a brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, even by the husband should be considered rape.
The court has also stayed the proceedings before the Additional City and Sessions and Special Court pertaining to the case.
Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv, along with Jaikriti Jadeja, advocate, appeared for the petitioner husband.
In March this year, Justice Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court had refused to quash proceedings in a case wherein a Special Court framed charges against the husband, for offences punishable under Sections 376, 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 5(m) and (l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Karnataka High Court had held that "a woman and man being equal under the Constitution cannot be made unequal by Exception-2 to Section 375 of the IPC."
Rejecting the differentia created by the exception between a husband, and any other man, the single judge bench of Justice Nagaprasanna had reasoned that, "a man sexually assaulting or raping a woman is amenable to punishment under Section 376 of IPC. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that if the man is the husband, performing the very same acts as that of another man, he is exempted. In my considered view, such an argument cannot be countenanced."
The High Court had further noted that “integrity and bodily freedom of a woman, the wife, being ravaged by the husband, whether, could be absolved and protected by a law that mandates equality of its application.”
On the last date of hearing, the Supreme Court, while issuing notice, asked the petitioner to inform the trial court that it is seized of the matter.
Case title: Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka
Please Login or Register
