The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a wife under 18 constitutes rape even if it is consensual. Justice GA Sanap upheld a 10-year prison sentence handed down to a man by a trial court, citing a Supreme Court precedent in Independent Thought v. Union of India.

The judgment clarified that the marital rape exception in the Indian Penal Code does not apply to minors.

Read also:Bombay HC imposes Rs 80 lakh penalty on SEBI, NSE, BSE for freezing certain demat account; says illegal move

“Considering the law established by the Apex Court, the sexual act of the appellant with the victim being his wife would not constitute rape or sexual assault by penetration, it cannot be accepted. It must be stated that intercourse with a girl under 18 is rape whether she is married or not… The defense of consensual sex with the wife is not available when the age of the wife or the girl who is presumed to be the wife is under 18 ,” observed Justice Sanap, Bar and Bench reported.

The background of the case

The case dates back to 2019, involving a minor who had been in a relationship with the accused for several years. As their relationship progressed, the girl rented a room in Wardha to support her family, where the accused visited her regularly. The court heard the man pressured her into having sex with the promise of marriage.

The situation escalated when the girl became pregnant. The accused arranged an impromptu marriage ceremony in a rented room, which the victim later described as a hoax. Following the ceremony, the man urged her to have an abortion and denied paternity, claiming she had become pregnant by another man.

Read also:‘Suffers from no vice’: Bombay High Court dismisses petitions against renaming Aurangabad, Osmanabad

Months later, the girl reported the matter to the police, which led to the man’s arrest and subsequent trial.

Defense arguments rejected

During questioning, the victim admitted to referring to the accused as her husband to officials and presented photographs of the two of them making garlands. Based on this, the defense argued that the sexual relationship was consensual.

The court rejected the argument, saying the victim’s age at the time of the crime made any consent irrelevant. “Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was a so-called marriage between them, given the allegations made by the victim that it was a sexual act against her consent, it would amount to rape.” said Judge Sanap.

The ruling reinforces the legal position that marital status or consent cannot override legal protections for minors under the law.