‘Husband demands, wife refuses’: What SC said about the constitutional validity of laws granting immunity to husbands in marital rape cases | News from India

The Supreme Court said Thursday it would rule on constitutional validity laws granting husbands immunity from trial in marital rape case. The case is adjourned to October 22.
“It is a constitutional question. We have two judgments before us and we must decide. The central question is that of the constitutional validity (of the penal provisions)” CJI Chandrachud said.
Referring to non-consensual crimes committed by husbands against their wives in the absence of any law criminalizing marital rape, Justice Pardiwala “The husband demands. The wife refuses. Now when the husband sequesters her. It is unjustified confinement. When he harms her, it can be a simple or serious injury… Criminal intimidation also comes into play game. Then the woman succumbs and the last this act is not considered rape… So your argument is that if all of these are crimes, then why not the last main part where she succumbs.
Under the exception clause of Section 375 of the IPC, now replaced by the BNS, sexual intercourse or acts committed by a man with his wife, provided the woman is not a minor, do not constitute not rape.
The central government has warned of the risk of misuse of the amended provisions in a rapidly changing social and family landscape and said it could be difficult for individuals to prove the presence or absence of consent.
“You say that (the penal provision) violates Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19, Article 21 (life and personal liberty)… Parliament intended, when it passed the exception clause, that when a man engages in a sexual act with a woman above 18 years of age, it cannot be considered as rape,” the apex court noted.
The Center had earlier opposed the criminalization of marital rape in order to protect the institution of marriage. “Given the nature of the conjugal institution in our socio-legal environment, if the legislator is of the opinion that, for the preservation of the conjugal institution, the contested exception should be retained, it is maintained that it would not be appropriate for the SC to cancel the exception,” he said.