New Delhi: Protection given to the husband because it was ordered for rape under the IPC it might have something to do with “qualitative differences” between marriage and non-marriage relations, the Delhi High Court said on Monday.
In the Introduction Commentary, Justice C Shankar’s Day, as part of the division bench, tested the claims and submissions made by the petition batch that tried to criminalize sex without approval in marriage as a ‘marital rape’.
The court said while there was no compromise with women’s rights of sexual autonomy and every action of rape must be punished, “qualitative difference” is that in marriage, unlike direct relationships or relationships, the pair has hope and “to the legal rights limit” to build conjugal relationships / sexual with partners.
“The qualitative difference has a part to play in why the exception is there …
we must appreciate the reason why it remains in books Although the commission commission and vermal law.
For 150 years, the legislature has saved it,” said Justice Shankar, Underpointing that the applicant must show reason why HC must attack provisions.
Add motorists that this is not an exiled view but only the initial investigation line, Shankar justice said one reason parliament keeping the exception might be intact as the rape is defined in section 375.
“It’s a vast definition, he said even one sex example that doesn’t want to be with Parties who don’t want rape, “he said.
“Come on, bring a newly married partner.
On a certain day, the wife said no …
if for the third day it happened, the husband said ‘I walked out’ but wife gave up.
Do we categorize it as rape? He exercised what he believed as he believed as His conjugal rights.
Rape if we dropped an exception, “said the court.
“There is no compromise with women’s rights to sexual integrity and body.
A husband does not have a business to force.
(But) the court cannot ignore what happens if we attack the exception.
Her husband went to prison for 10 years if he did this even on one Opportunity …
we need a much sharper insight into this problem, “said the judge.
Justice Shankar also expressed his order with the use of the term “Marriage Rape”, by saying that calling it rape to determine all forms of sexual relations that did not want between a husband and a wife was “a kind of pre-decision”.
“There is no (concept) of marital rape in India …
If it’s a rape – marriage, non-marriage or anything, it must be punished.
Use of repeated words, in my opinion, obscure the real problem,” he said.
The bench that is headed by justice Rajiv Shakdher – which states he will “order” “comment” and clarify the court only has an open discussion – is a hearing pills submitted by the NSM Rit Foundation and all Indian Democratic Women’s Associations.