The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that sexual acts between a husband and wife, including oral and anal sex, cannot be prosecuted as “unnatural offences” under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In its March 25 order, Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that in light of the existing legal framework on sexual offences, such allegations within a valid marriage do not attract Section 377. The Court made the observation while partly allowing a petition filed by a man accused of sexually abusing his wife.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by a woman against her husband and his family members — including her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She alleged that despite giving dowry worth ₹4 lakh along with gold jewellery and household items at the time of marriage, her in-laws later demanded an additional ₹6 lakh and a Bullet motorcycle.
According to her, she was subjected to harassment, physical assault and threats over these demands. She also accused her husband of forcing her into sexual acts that caused her severe pain. Additionally, she alleged inappropriate behaviour by her father-in-law and claimed that he threatened her with a licensed firearm.
Based on the complaint, police registered a case under multiple provisions of the IPC, including Section 377 (unnatural offences), Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), Section 354 (assault with intent to outrage modesty), along with provisions relating to assault and criminal intimidation. Charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act were also invoked.
The husband approached the High Court seeking quashing of the case against him and his family. His counsel argued that the allegations were exaggerated and inconsistent with the complainant’s earlier statements in maintenance proceedings. It was also contended that Section 377 could not apply to sexual acts between a married couple.
Examining the legal position after the 2013 amendments to criminal law, the Court noted that the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC was expanded to include various forms of penetration, including oral and anal acts. However, it also pointed out that Exception 2 to Section 375 — often referred to as the marital rape exception — continues to exclude sexual acts between a husband and wife (where the wife is not a minor) from the ambit of rape.
The Court observed that since such acts are already covered under the definition of rape but are exempted within marriage, they cannot be prosecuted separately under Section 377 either.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the charge under Section 377 against the husband.
The Court also granted relief to the sister-in-law, noting that the allegations against her were vague and lacked specific details in the complainant’s statement before the magistrate.
However, it refused to quash the remaining charges against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Court held that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the case on allegations of dowry harassment, cruelty and criminal intimidation.
It further clarified that issues such as alleged false implication, inconsistencies in statements, absence of medical evidence and mala fide intent involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided at the stage of quashing proceedings and must be examined during trial.
The case will therefore continue against the husband and his parents on the remaining charges.
Advocate Tapendra Sharma appeared for the petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Brijesh Kumar Tyagi represented the State. Advocate Madan Mohan Tripathi appeared for the complainant.
