‘Rape is rape’: Karnataka high court declines to drop marital rape case against man

Bengaluru, Mar 24: In a ruling that could help shape the debate on marital rape, Karnataka High Court Wednesday refused to quash rape charges filed by a wife against her husband, saying, "Rape is a rape, be it performed by a man, the `husband`, on the woman, ‘wife."

 

 

The single-judge bench of the Karnataka HC was hearing a case filed by a woman against her husband for treating her as a `sex slave` ever since they were married. The husband has been accused of forcing his wife into unnatural sex in the presence of their daughter too.

 

Hearing the case, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said "The institution of marriage does not confer, cannot confer and in my considered view, should not be construed to confer, any special male privilege or a licence for unleashing of a brutal beast. If it is punishable to a man, it should be punishable to a man albeit, the man being a husband."

 

 

 

Nagaprasanna further contended that any man raping a woman is “amenable to punishment under Section 376 of IPC”. “The contention of the learned senior counsel 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. A man is a man; an act is an act; rape is a rape, be it performed by a man the ‘husband’ on the woman ‘wife’," the judge emphasised.

 

As per reports, the high court also said that such acts of husbands scar the soul of the wives. It is, therefore, imperative for the lawmakers to now "hear the voices of silence."

 

The complainant registered a complaint against her husband for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offence) of IPC. The Special Court took cognisance of the case against the husband for raping his wife and framed charges against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376, 498A, and 506 of IPC along with others. Aggrieved by this, the accused husband moved to the high court.

.

.