In a bizarre and appalling ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a man engaging in “unnatural sex” with his wife doesn’t amount to rape, even if it’s non-consensual, as long as the wife was not below fifteen years of age. Upon encountering this disturbing news, I couldn't help but wonder how many levels the observation and the ruling of the court were wrong.
The term "unnatural sex" would be the first point of contention. With the Supreme Court striking down the outdated aspects of Section 377, sexual activity between consenting adults was decriminalized, irrespective of their gender. Whatever was previously described as “unnatural sex” has been legal ever since. The fact that the MP High Court uses the term “unnatural sex” to refer to anal sex even in 2024 is unfortunate and problematic.
The second point of contention is the observation that the consent of the woman is immaterial in the instance of marital sex. Even though marital rape is not recognized by the Indian Penal Code (the morality of which is a separate debate), victims of domestic sexual abuse have the option to file cases under different provisions like cruelty. However, it's alarming to witness a respected institution like the High Court downplaying the significance of consent, even within the institution of marriage, especially in a country where women's safety standards are often questioned.
Thirdly, the court's disregard for the wife's consent as long as she is above fifteen years old is concerning. Given that the legal age of marriage for women in India is eighteen, it's outright reprehensible for the high court to suggest that consent only applies to wives under fifteen, potentially endorsing unlawful child marriage.
Overall, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling reflects a worrying attitude towards consent and marital relations, highlighting the urgent need for legal reform and a deeper societal understanding of consent and gender rights.
Comments
Post a Comment