In a significant judgment delineating the scope of cruelty in marital relationships, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that non-consensual unnatural sex and physical assault by a husband upon his wife can amount to "cruelty" under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, even if such acts do not attract penal consequences under Section 377 IPC due to the marital exemption under Section 375 IPC.

Case Background

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the complainant against her husband, alleging offences under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the IPC. The complainant alleged that her husband, often under the influence of alcohol, forced her into unnatural sex from the early days of their marriage and assaulted her when she resisted. Despite her multiple complaints to the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra and police intervention, the conduct allegedly persisted.

The husband approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and related proceedings, arguing that no offence was made out under the IPC.

Relying on the judgment in Manish Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner contended that unnatural sex with a legally wedded wife is not punishable under Section 377 IPC due to the marital exemption under Section 375, which excludes marital rape from the definition of rape. Accordingly, he argued that Section 377 was inapplicable, and in the absence of any dowry demand, the invocation of Section 498A IPC was also unsustainable.

The complainant opposed the plea for quashing, reiterating that the acts of unnatural sex were non-consensual, accompanied by assault and persistent cruelty. She referred to her repeated complaints and the failure of authorities to protect her, arguing that the pattern of abuse clearly constituted cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, while deciding Misc. Criminal Case No. 32576 of 2024, carefully evaluated the legal boundaries of consent, marital privileges, and the statutory interpretation of cruelty.

The Court reaffirmed its earlier view from Manish Sahu, reiterating that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife—if she is not below 15 years of age—does not constitute rape, as per Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.

However, the Court made a crucial distinction:

“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. It is not out of place to mention here that demand of dowry is not sine qua non for cruelty.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized consensual same-sex acts between adults under Section 377, the Court noted that the provision remains applicable for non-consensual unnatural acts, but not within the context of marriage due to the marital exemption in Section 375.

Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that the definition of cruelty under Section 498A IPC is broad, encompassing any willful conduct that causes grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical.

Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the application:

• The charge under Section 377 IPC was quashed, owing to the marital exemption from rape and the lack of applicability of Section 377 to such acts within marriage.

• However, the charges under Sections 498A and 323 IPC were upheld, as the allegations of physical cruelty and assault presented a prima facie case warranting trial.

This judgment underscores that marital status does not insulate acts of coercion, violence, and non-consensual conduct from legal scrutiny under Section 498A IPC. It further clarifies that demand for dowry is not a prerequisite for invoking cruelty provisions, thereby expanding the understanding of spousal abuse within Indian criminal law.