Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the institution of marriage cannot be used to confer any special male privilege or a license for unleashing of a “brutal beast” on the wife.
“A brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, albeit by the husband, cannot but be termed to be a rape. Such sexual assault by a husband on his wife will have grave consequences on the mental sheet of the wife, it has both psychological and physiological impact on her. Such acts of husbands scar the soul of the wives,” the Court said.
For ages man donning the robes of a husband has used the wife as his chattel The age old thought and tradition that the husbands are the rulers of their wives, their body, mind and soul should be effaced, the Court emphasised.
“A man sexually assaulting or 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,” the Court made it clear.
It, therefore, concluded that the charge framed against the husband for alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC for alleged rape of his wife, in the peculiar facts of this case, does not warrant any interference and is a mater of trial.
Source: Barandbench
