S. 498A| Forced Unnatural Sex With Wife Amounts To Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh HC

However, the Court clarified that such acts do not amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage, due to the exception carved out in the statute.

The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia made the observation while hearing a case arising from proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior.

The FIR, lodged by the wife (Respondent No. 2), invoked Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the IPC.

Background

According to the complainant, she was married to the applicant on May 2, 2023, under Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs. 5 lakh in cash, household items, and a Bullet motorcycle.

In her FIR, the wife accused the applicant of engaging in unnatural sex acts after consuming alcohol, often resorting to violence when she resisted. She further alleged persistent cruelty and abuse, despite attempts by her family and interventions by the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra and local police.

Applicant’s Contentions

The Applicant's counsel contended that since the complainant was his legally wedded wife, the allegation of unnatural sex within marriage did not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC.

Relying on the High Court’s earlier decision in Manish Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC No. 8388 of 2023), it was argued that the amended definition of rape under Section 375 IPC and prevailing interpretations do not criminalize such acts within a marital relationship.

The Counsel further asserted that if the primary allegation under Section 377 fails, then charges under Sections 498A and 323 should also not stand.

Court’s Observations

The Single Bench examined the statutory framework and relevant judicial precedents. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1], the Court reiterated that consensual unnatural sex between adults is no longer criminalized under Section 377 IPC. However, the distinction in the present case was the absence of consent.

Despite this, the Court observed that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC; which exempts sexual intercourse by a man with his wife (not under 15 years of age) from the definition of rape, remains operative under Indian law, unless the couple is living separately under a decree of judicial separation (in which case Section 376B IPC may apply).

Accordingly, the Court held, “Thus, in nutshell, it can be said that if an unnatural sex takes place between two persons of either same gender or different gender with the consent of both the parties, then it would not be an offence under Section 377 of IPC.”

However, the Court said that even where consent is absent, such acts within marriage are not punishable under Section 377 IPC due to the statutory exception. "Thus the consent of both the parties is necessary for taking the act out of the purview of Section 377 of IPC," it said.

Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

Turning to the allegations under Section 498A IPC, the Court emphasized that cruelty encompasses not only dowry-related abuse but also any wilful conduct that could cause grave mental or physical harm to the wife. The Single Bench observed, “Committing unnatural sex with wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty.”

The Court also clarified that demand for dowry is not a prerequisite to invoke Section 498A, as cruelty under the provision is not limited to financial coercion.

Conclusion

The Court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the charge under Section 377 IPC but upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. The Court held, “Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under Section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC is upheld.”