Gajendra Mourya v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026

The petitioner and the prosecutrix solemnized an inter-caste marriage under the Special Marriage Act on 12.04.2021 because the prosecutrix’s family allegedly opposed the marriage.

The prosecutrix later disputed the validity of the marriage and alleged that she was forced to sign the marriage papers due to an obscene video allegedly used against her.

Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties after the marriage.

The petitioner approached the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The prosecutrix filed a petition seeking annulment of marriage.

Both applications were rejected by the Family Court, after which appeals were filed and remained pending.

Nearly two months after the marriage, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner had committed rape upon her for more than one month.

The Court examined the records and photographs and observed that the marriage appeared to have been solemnized with mutual consent.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix subsequently changed her stand and lodged allegations of rape after matrimonial disputes had already arisen.

The High Court held that the petitioner was the legally wedded husband of the prosecutrix.

The Court observed that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC excludes sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife from the ambit of rape, provided the wife is not a minor.

The Court relied upon Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and held that the aspect of consent within marriage is legally immaterial for prosecution of rape allegations against a husband.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of marriage and had solemnized the marriage voluntarily.

The Court noted that the FIR was filed after matrimonial disputes had arisen and after a delay of around two months from the date of marriage.

The Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.

The judgment strictly follows the statutory framework under Section 375 IPC and its Exception 2, which continues to provide immunity from rape prosecution within marriage.

The Court adopted a literal interpretation of the statutory provision and emphasized that courts are bound by the law as it presently exists.

Reliance on Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India demonstrates judicial acknowledgment of the continued existence of the marital rape exception in Indian criminal law.

The judgment reinforces the legal position that consent within marriage is treated differently from consent outside marriage for the purpose of rape prosecution.

The Court gave importance to documentary evidence and photographs indicating voluntary solemnization of marriage.

The ruling reflects judicial concern regarding misuse of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

The judgment may attract criticism from advocates of constitutional morality, bodily autonomy, and gender justice, because it upholds the marital rape exception.

The case highlights the continuing constitutional debate surrounding the validity of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.

The decision also illustrates the distinction between matrimonial conflicts and criminal prosecution for sexual offences.