Why differentiating between rape victims, asking pills in GUJ HC

Ahmedabad: PIL submitted by Jaideep Verma insists that it is not logical not to treat a rape of a woman who is married by her husband as a violation and asking questions about creating classes of rape victims, where if the victim is a human wife, he will not be punished, And the man will be punished if the action is committed to another woman.
The applicant handed over this legal provisions arbitrarily arbitrarily and violated a woman’s sexual autonomy, which was recognized by a certain assessment.
Impunity in marital rape opposes the right of a woman to say not to sexual relations and make it subject to her husband’s wishes.
It oppose the constitutional and fundamental rights of a woman to live with dignity and for human care.
It is contrary to the right to personal freedom, the right to refuse, the right to reproductive choice and its rights to privacy.
It was conveyed that the exception given to Marital rape has created artificial differences between victims – wives and women who are not a wife.
While legal protection against rape is available for a woman, married women do not enjoy this protection against her husband.
While a husband was convicted for lower violations committed to his wife such as atrocities, beating, etc., he escaped punishment in cruel crimes.
While the law creates protection against a woman as a wife for smaller violations such as domestic violence, legal protection is not available for him with honesty crimes where his sentence ranges from 10 years to prison.
There are five categories of rape violations where rape is carried out in pregnant women or illness, the sentence is more severe, but if the man is husband, he enjoys impunity.
The applicant also argues that while a husband can be punished for sodomy on his wife, he cannot be punished for rape.
He called this “illogical”.
It was also conveyed that SC has argued that the right to sexual autonomy for a woman is attached and the rights that cannot be revoked.
However, the exception in the provisions of the IPC canceled this important right.