In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that non-consensual unnatural sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife is punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even though it may not amount to rape under Section 375 IPC.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal while dismissing a plea filed by Imran Khan alias Ashok Ratna, who sought quashing of charges against him under Sections 498A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC and certain provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioner had argued that Section 377 could not be invoked as the complainant was his legally wedded wife and over 18 years of age. However, the Court rejected this contention, asserting the importance of individual consent and sexual autonomy even within marriage.
“Given the above analysis, it is clear that carnal sex, other than penile-vaginal intercourse is not a natural orientation of sex for the majority of women, therefore the same cannot be done by the husband, even with his wife without her consent,” Justice Deshwal stated.
He further emphasized that a wife’s legal status does not strip her of bodily autonomy or the right to refuse non-consensual acts.
“A wife may be above 18 years but as an individual identity she has a choice for sexual orientation that has to be protected, and merely because she is a wife of a man, her fundamental right not to give consent against the unnatural sex cannot be taken away.”
This ruling comes in contrast to a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which had held that such acts were not punishable under Section 377 IPC if committed within marriage. The Allahabad High Court explicitly disagreed with that interpretation.
“A woman despite being a wife also has individual right to particular sexual orientation and dignity,” the Court reiterated.
The decision marks a significant affirmation of marital consent and bodily integrity under Indian constitutional values. It underscores that marriage does not equate to unconditional sexual consent and that coercive unnatural intercourse, even within wedlock, attracts penal consequences.
Case: Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna vs State of UP and Another – Available on LAWFYI.IO
