The Allahabad High Court dismissed a case of cruelty filed by a wife against her husband, stating that the core issue was sexual incompatibility rather than dowry demands. The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence of cruelty.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a husband cannot be held liable for rape under IPC, stating that non-consensual acts between a husband and wife cannot automatically be classified as unnatural sex. The court dismissed the FIR filed by the wife of Madhya Pradesh MLA Umang Singhar.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that unnatural sex with a legally wedded wife, who is at least 15 years old, does not constitute an offence under Section 377 of the IPC. The court emphasized that marital consent issues are irrelevant in such cases, reinforcing that marital rape has not been recognized in this context.
The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a husband cannot be held guilty of rape under Section 375 IPC for having anal sex with his wife, emphasizing the implied consent in marriage.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that unnatural sex with a legally wedded wife is not an offense, even without her consent, if she is over fifteen years old. This ruling came during the quashing of an FIR under Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that unnatural sex with a legally wedded wife is not an offense, even without her consent, if she is over fifteen years old. This ruling came during the quashing of an FIR under Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a husband cannot be held liable for rape under Indian law and that non-consensual ‘unnatural’ sex within marriage does not fall under Section 377 of the IPC. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi dismissed the charges against Umang Singhar, stating that marital relations go beyond mere procreation.
