Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860

SM v. State, 2026

The Court reaffirmed the statutory marital rape exception under Indian criminal law.

Madhya Pradesh High Court·10 January 2026
SM v. State, 2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Date of Decision

10 January 2026

Judges

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

 

  • The husband and wife were married in June 2022.

  • At the time of marriage, the wife’s parents gifted ₹21 lakhs in cash and 15 tolas of gold voluntarily.

  • Soon after marriage, disputes arose, and the wife alleged physical abuse by the husband.

  • One incident involved the husband allegedly assaulting the wife and smashing her head after she refused to return home from a temple.

  • The wife initially complained to the Mahila Thana, but the dispute was resolved through counselling.

  • The wife later alleged that the husband forcibly established physical relations and subjected her to unnatural sexual acts without consent.

  • In August 2023, the wife lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323, and 294 IPC.

  • The husband contended that the FIR was a counterblast to a divorce petition filed by him in September 2023.

  • The husband sought quashment of the FIR, leading to the present proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether forced unnatural sexual acts by a husband upon his adult wife constitute rape under Section 376 IPC?

  2. Whether Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC bars prosecution of a husband for rape against his wife?

  3. Whether allegations of unnatural sexual acts between husband and wife attract Section 377 IPC?

  4. Whether forced unnatural sex by a husband amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC?

  5. Whether the FIR deserved partial quashment in the absence of medical and corroborative evidence?

Held

  • Forced unnatural sex by a husband does not amount to rape under Section 376 IPC.

  • Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC grants immunity to a husband from prosecution for rape against his wife.

  • Section 377 IPC is not attracted in a marital relationship in the present legal framework.

  • Such conduct, however, constitutes cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

  • Allegations unsupported by medical or corroborative evidence cannot sustain serious sexual offence charges.

Analysis

  • The Court reaffirmed the statutory marital rape exception under Indian criminal law.

  • It clarified the legal vacuum regarding prosecution of non-consensual sexual acts within marriage.

  • By recognising forced unnatural sex as cruelty, the Court provided a limited remedy to the aggrieved wife.

  • The judgment highlights the tension between constitutional morality and statutory law.

  • The Court carefully distinguished between criminal sexual offences and matrimonial cruelty.

  • The decision underscores the judiciary’s restraint in the absence of legislative reform on marital rape.