Marital rape: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* The position in other countries */

2026-04-16T10:38:41Z

‎The position in other countries

Pdewan: /* As in 2022 */

2025-05-30T09:58:43Z

‎As in 2022

Jyoti: /* Marital ties may shield spouse from rape charge: Delhi HC */

2025-03-26T18:40:20Z

‎Marital ties may shield spouse from rape charge: Delhi HC

Jyoti: /* Allahabad High Court */

2024-05-07T10:59:52Z

‎Allahabad High Court

Jyoti: /* Chhattisgarh high court */

2023-12-25T17:35:52Z

‎Chhattisgarh high court

Jyoti: /* Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: Karnataka HC, 2022 */

2023-12-20T10:34:04Z

‎Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: Karnataka HC, 2022

Pdewan: /* Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: HC, 2022 */

2023-12-19T18:14:13Z

‎Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: HC, 2022

Jyoti: /* Delhi HC delivers split verdict on marital rape */

2022-10-06T19:35:01Z

‎Delhi HC delivers split verdict on marital rape

Jyoti: /* 2022: SC mentions the concept of marital rape */

2022-10-06T19:34:43Z

‎2022: SC mentions the concept of marital rape

Jyoti: /* Court judgements */

2022-10-06T19:34:09Z

‎Court judgements

@@ Line 496: / Line 496: @@
 Articles 271 & 278 of the Criminal Code criminalise rape of men or women, including spousal rape, as sexual assault.
 =See also=
 [[Marital rape: India ]]

@@ Line 496: / Line 496: @@
 Articles 271 & 278 of the Criminal Code criminalise rape of men or women, including spousal rape, as sexual assault.
 [[Category:Crime|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
@@ Line 502: / Line 507: @@
 MARITAL RA]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
 MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 26 March 2025
Line 284:		Line 284:
	The bench headed by Justice Rajiv Shakdher — who stated he would “reserve” his “comment” and clarified the court was just having an open discussion — was hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation and All India Democratic Women’s Association.		The bench headed by Justice Rajiv Shakdher — who stated he would “reserve” his “comment” and clarified the court was just having an open discussion — was hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation and All India Democratic Women’s Association.

		+	==Marital rape immunity also extends to Section 377 of IPC: Chhattisgarh HC==
		+	[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/chhattisgarh-hc-marital-rape-exemption-9837558/ Ajoy Sinha Karpuram, February 15, 2025: ''The Indian Express'']
		+
		+
		+	''' How Chhattisgarh HC extending marital rape exemption to Section 377 removes all recourse for women '''
		+
		+	The Chhattisgarh High Court in a key ruling said the marital rape immunity in law also extended to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalised “unnatural sex”.
		+
		+	Section 375, which criminalises rape, states that the provision does not extend to “sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife,” when the wife has attained the age of majority (18 years old). However, Section 377, which outlaws “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal”, does not contain this exception as it was originally drafted to criminalise homosexuality.
		+
		+	The HC was hearing an appeal filed by a man against his conviction in a case about the death of his wife in 2017. A trial court had found the wife became ill, and died subsequently, due to a forced physical relationship. It had convicted the man under the IPC sections 375 (rape), 377, and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). But the HC reversed the trial court’s ruling.
		+
		+	IPC Section 377, now omitted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), is often the only legal recourse for married women in cases of non-consensual sex in a marriage. The HC ruling effectively takes away that recourse, echoing the same concerns that legal experts had when the BNS omitted the provision entirely.
		+
		+
		+	''' What is the Chhattisgarh HC ruling? '''
		+
		+	In its ruling, the HC pointed out that Section 375 of the IPC contained the marital rape exception under which a man could not be prosecuted for non-consensual sex with his wife who had attained the age of majority. It also observed that an amendment was enacted in 2013 to expand the definition of rape but the exception was retained in the section. The court said that it was a “well-settled principle of law” that if two provisions were inconsistent “then the two cannot stand together and earlier is abrogated by the latter”.
		+
		+	Notably, the marital rape exception is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court, and the Centre has filed an affidavit in favour of retaining the provision.
		+
		+	Regarding Section 377, the HC relied on the SC’s 2018 judgment which had decriminalised homosexuality. The apex court’s ruling had only “read down” this provision, and not entirely struck it down. Therefore, Section 377 remains on the books, continuing to punish non-consensual “unnatural offences”. An unnatural offence against the “order of nature” is understood to include sexual acts that do not lead to procreation, covering, for example, bestiality.
		+
		+	The HC said following the 2018 ruling, if an unnatural offence is committed between consenting partners “Section 377 IPC is not made out”. The court, thus, held that “sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife is not a rape and therefore if any unnatural sex as defined under Section 377 is committed by the husband with his wife, then it can also not be treated to be an offence.”
		+
		+	Given the marital rape exception, over the years, women have invoked Section 377 for non-consensual sex along with provisions of domestic violence etc. Section 377 carries a sentence of up to ten years in jail. Even if it did not lead to conviction, the provision was invoked as a starting point to initiate prosecution and leverage some protection under the law.
		+
		+
		+	''' Why is Section 377’s omission from BNS an issue? '''
		+
		+	There is no equivalent for Section 377 in the BNS. Numerous experts have argued that this is an issue as the deletion of the law leaves men and LGBTQIA+ individuals without meaningful protection against sexual offences.
		+
		+	In November 2023, a Parliamentary Standing Committee tasked with recommending changes to the BNS (before it was enacted) said in its report that Section 377 remained applicable “in cases of non-consensual carnal intercourse with adults”. By deleting it from the BNS, it noted that “no provision for non-consensual sexual offence against male, female, transgender and for bestiality has been made”.
		+
		+	These concerns were raised because sexual offences under the BNS fall under the chapter titled “Of Offences Against Woman And Child” and, from the text of the provisions, only envisions men as the perpetrators and women as victims for offences such as rape, sexual harassment, and stalking. It does not consider the possibility of men or LGBTQIA+ persons (who do not identify as women) being the victims of such crimes.
		+
		+	The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 broadly punishes those who commit “harms or injuries or endangers the life, safety, health or well-being, whether mental or physical, of a transgender person”. However, it only provides a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment, placing it on a lower pedestal compared to other serious sexual offences.
		+
		+	In 2024, Advocate Gantavya Gulati filed a PIL at the Delhi HC seeking the revival of Section 377. In August 2024, the Delhi HC directed the Centre to treat the plea as a representation and decide it “as expeditiously as possible, preferably in six months”.
		+
		+	However, the SC dismissed a similar plea in October 2024, ruling that “This Court cannot…direct that a particular act constitutes an offence. Such an exercise falls under Parliamentary domain”.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
		+	MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|RRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RA
		+	]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
		+	MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]

	==Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: Karnataka HC, 2022==		==Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: Karnataka HC, 2022==

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 7 May 2024
Line 241:		Line 241:

	Besides noting that the medical evidence in the case was not supportive of allegations of commission of unnatural sex, the court, in this judgment dated December 6, said that in the proposed Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, which is likely to replace IPC, no provision like IPC Sec 377 is included.		Besides noting that the medical evidence in the case was not supportive of allegations of commission of unnatural sex, the court, in this judgment dated December 6, said that in the proposed Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, which is likely to replace IPC, no provision like IPC Sec 377 is included.
		+
		+	===Nor is anal sex: Madhya Pradesh HC/ 2024===
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=04_05_2024_012_001_cap_TOI Ashutosh Shukla, May 4, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Bhopal: Observing that marital rape is not an offence under Indian Penal Code (IPC), Madhya Pradesh HC has ruled that unnatural sex with wife is not rape, and her consent is immaterial in such cases.
		+
		+	Justice G S Ahluwalia made the observation while quashing an FIR registered by an estranged wife against her husband under IPC sections 377 (unnatural sex) and 506 (criminal intimidation). In his May 1 order, the judge referred to several judgments of SC and HCs, and the definition of rape under section 375 of IPC, and stated that a husband engaging in anal sex with his wife did not amount to rape, even if it were non-consensual, as long as the wife was not below 15 years of age.
		+
		+	According to the husband’s petition, the couple got married in May 2019, but the wife has been living at her parental house since Feb 2020. She filed a case of dowry harassment against her husband and in-laws, which is pending in court. In July 2022, the wife lodged another FIR accusing him of unnatural sex.
		+
		+	“The only question for consideration is whether a husband during the subsistence of marriage while residing together can be said to be guilty of marital rape...,” Justice Ahluwalia said.

	[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA

@@ Line 219: / Line 219: @@
 The court, however, upheld charges against the husband under section 377 IPC, observing that if the “dominant intention of the offender is to derive sexual satisfaction in an unnatural way”, it would attract the relevant section of IPC that deals with unnatural offence.
-[[Category:Crime|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
+===Allahabad High Court===
 MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|RRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
+[[Category:India|RRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RA
-MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]
+]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
 MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:34, 20 December 2023
Line 265:		Line 265:

	“Such sexual assault by a husband on his wife will have grave consequences on the mental state of the wife, it has both psychological and physiological impact on her. Such acts of husbands scar the soul of wives. It is, therefore, imperative for lawmakers to now hear the ‘voices of silence’,” Justice Nagaprasanna noted in his order.		“Such sexual assault by a husband on his wife will have grave consequences on the mental state of the wife, it has both psychological and physiological impact on her. Such acts of husbands scar the soul of wives. It is, therefore, imperative for lawmakers to now hear the ‘voices of silence’,” Justice Nagaprasanna noted in his order.
		+
		+	===B: Gujarat HC/ 2023===
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/gujarat-high-court-rape-is-rape-even-if-committed-by-husband/articleshow/106105797.cms Dec 19, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	HC: Rape is rape, even if committed by husband
		+
		+	TIMES NEWS NETWORK
		+
		+	Ahmedabad : The Gujarat High Court has firmly asserted that “rape is rape” even if committed by a husband on his wife, while rejecting a bail application filed by a woman accused of complicity in her daughter-in-law’s case of rape and domestic violence against her husband and in-laws.
		+
		+	The complainant, married in Rajkot last year, alleged that her husband and in-laws recorded their intimate moments using a bedroom CCTV camera to generate income. She also claimed that the husband filmed their intimate acts on his mobile phone, circulating the videos on the family WhatsApp group and selling them to a pornographic website. An FIR was filed in August, leading to the arrest of her husband and in-laws. The mother-in-law sought bail from the high court, a plea denied by Justice DA Joshi, who insisted that she face trial.
		+
		+	Responding to the argument that rape by a husband is exempt under the IPC, the judge referred to the stand adopted by 50 American states, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and other European countries, where marital rape is deemed illegal.
		+
		+	“A man is a man; an act is an act; rape is rape, be it performed by a man, the ‘husband’, on the woman, ‘wife’,” Justice Joshi said, while explaining that a man raping a woman is liable for punishment under section 376 of IPC.
		+	The HC emphasised the impact of offensive behaviour on women, creating an environment that silences survivors and undermines their dignity and self-worth. It noted that gender violence often remains unseen, hidden in a culture of silence, and discussed the high cost for women in a male-dominated society to report sexual violence. “This silence needs to be broken. In doing so, men, perhaps more than women, have a duty and role to play in averting and combating violence against women,” the court said.

	[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA

@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
-==Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: HC, 2022==
+==Rape is rape even if perpetrated by husband: Karnataka HC, 2022==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=24_03_2022_012_011_cap_TOI  Vasantha Kumar, March 24, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 “Such sexual assault by a husband on his wife will have grave consequences on the mental state of the wife, it has both psychological and physiological impact on her. Such acts of husbands scar the soul of wives. It is, therefore, imperative for lawmakers to now hear the ‘voices of silence’,” Justice Nagaprasanna noted in his order.
 ==Delhi HC delivers split verdict on marital rape==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 6 October 2022
Line 281:		Line 281:

	Shakdher, who headed the bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and for being “steeped in patriarchy and misogyny. ”		Shakdher, who headed the bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and for being “steeped in patriarchy and misogyny. ”
		+
		+
		+	==2022: SC mentions the concept of marital rape==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rape-under-abortion-law-includes-marital-rape-supreme-court/articleshow/94539535.cms Amit Anand Choudhary, Sep 30, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	NEW DELHI: In an important verdict reinforcing bodily and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman, the Supreme Court, also for the first time, recognised marital rape for the purpose of unwanted pregnancy for abortion and held that rape under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape committed on his wife.
		+
		+	Though the protection given to marital rape under penal provision for rape in Indian Penal Code is under challenge in Supreme Court and is pending, today's verdict recognised it under as far its application in civil law like MTP Act. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna, J B Pardiwala said that it is not inconceivable that married women become pregnant as a result of their husbands having “raped” them which could be a ground for abortion of unwanted pregnancy.
		+
		+	"Married women may also form part of the class of survivors of sexual assault or rape. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘rape’ is sexual intercourse with a person, without their consent or against their will, regardless of whether such forced intercourse occurs in the context of matrimony. A woman may become pregnant as a result of non-consensual sexual intercourse performed upon her by her husband. We would be remiss in not recognizing that intimate partner violence is a reality and can take the form of rape," Justice Chandrachud, who penned the verdict for the bench, said.
		+
		+	"The misconception that strangers are exclusively or almost exclusively responsible for sex- and gender-based violence is a deeply regrettable one. Sex- and gender-based violence (in all its forms) within the context of the family has long formed a part of the lived experiences of scores of women," the bench said.
		+
		+	The court said that MTR Act and IPC are applicable in different speheres and understanding “rape” under the MTP Act as including marital rape did not have the effect of striking down Exception 2 to Section 375 on offence of rape whose validity is to be decided by another bench.
		+
		+	"It is not inconceivable that married women become pregnant as a result of their husbands having “raped” them. The nature of sexual violence and the contours of consent do not undergo a transformation when one decides to marry. The institution of marriage does not influence the answer to the question of whether a woman has consented to sexual relations. If the woman is in an abusive relationship, she may face great difficulty in accessing medical resources or consulting doctors," it said.
		+
		+	"Notwithstanding Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, the meaning of the words “sexual assault” or “rape” in Rule 3B(a) includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape committed on his wife. The meaning of rape must therefore be understood as including marital rape, solely for the purposes of the MTP Act and any rules and regulations framed thereunder. Any other interpretation would have the effect of compelling a woman to give birth to and raise a child with a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her," the bench said.
		+
		+	The court also held that in case of pregnancy arising out of sexual assault it was not necessary that the offender be convicted or criminal case be registered before the pregnant woman can access an abortion,
		+	After a split verdict by Delhi High Court on whether marital rape could be brought within the ambit of offence of rape which at present is exempted, the Supreme Court decided to examine the issue and sought response from the Centre.
		+
		+	A bench of justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar of the HC differed in their reading of the exception under section 375 IPC that shields husbands from a rape charge by wives.
		+
		+	Justice Shakdher, who headed the division bench , had favoured striking down the marital rape exception and said it would be tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years since the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But Justice Shankar, had said the exception under the rape law is not unconstitutional and was based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the exception as well as section 375 (rape) of the IPC itself.
		+
		+	As the High Court had allowed the parties to approach the Supreme Court for a final say on the matter saying it involved substantial questions of law which required a decision by the top court, the PIL petitioners filed appeal in the apex court.
		+
		+	The HC’s split verdict came on PILs filed in 2015 and 2017 by NGOs RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women’s Association, a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape law. Later two NGOs — Men Welfare Trust (MWT) and Hridey — joined the proceedings opposing the batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape.
		+
		+	Agreeing to hear their plea, the apex court issued notice on petitions challenging Exception 2 to Section 375 which provides that charges of rape cannot be attracted against a man who has non-consensual sex with his wife. The bench said that similar matter was also pending in the court and posted the case for February for hearing.

	[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 =Court judgements=
-NEW DELHI: In an important verdict reinforcing bodily and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman, the Supreme Court, also for the first time, recognised marital rape for the purpose of unwanted pregnancy for abortion and held that rape under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape committed on his wife.
+[[Category:Crime|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
+MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]
-Though the protection given to marital rape under penal provision for rape in Indian Penal Code is under challenge in Supreme Court and is pending, today's verdict recognised it under as far its application in civil law like MTP Act. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna, J B Pardiwala said that it is not inconceivable that married women become pregnant as a result of their husbands having “raped” them which could be a ground for abortion of unwanted pregnancy.
+[[Category:India|RRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSRAPES IN INDIA: COURT VERDICTSMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RA
+]]
-"Married women may also form part of the class of survivors of sexual assault or rape. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘rape’ is sexual intercourse with a person, without their consent or against their will, regardless of whether such forced intercourse occurs in the context of matrimony. A woman may become pregnant as a result of non-consensual sexual intercourse performed upon her by her husband. We would be remiss in not recognizing that intimate partner violence is a reality and can take the form of rape," Justice Chandrachud, who penned the verdict for the bench, said.
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|RMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIAMARITAL RAPE: INDIA
+MARITAL RAPE: INDIA]]
-"The misconception that strangers are exclusively or almost exclusively responsible for sex- and gender-based violence is a deeply regrettable one. Sex- and gender-based violence (in all its forms) within the context of the family has long formed a part of the lived experiences of scores of women," the bench said.
-−
-The court said that MTR Act and IPC are applicable in different speheres and understanding “rape” under the MTP Act as including marital rape did not have the effect of striking down Exception 2 to Section 375 on offence of rape whose validity is to be decided by another bench.
-−
-"It is not inconceivable that married women become pregnant as a result of their husbands having “raped” them. The nature of sexual violence and the contours of consent do not undergo a transformation when one decides to marry. The institution of marriage does not influence the answer to the question of whether a woman has consented to sexual relations. If the woman is in an abusive relationship, she may face great difficulty in accessing medical resources or consulting doctors," it said.
-−
-"Notwithstanding Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC, the meaning of the words “sexual assault” or “rape” in Rule 3B(a) includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape committed on his wife. The meaning of rape must therefore be understood as including marital rape, solely for the purposes of the MTP Act and any rules and regulations framed thereunder. Any other interpretation would have the effect of compelling a woman to give birth to and raise a child with a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her," the bench said.
-−
-The court also held that in case of pregnancy arising out of sexual assault it was not necessary that the offender be convicted or criminal case be registered before the pregnant woman can access an abortion,
-After a split verdict by Delhi High Court on whether marital rape could be brought within the ambit of offence of rape which at present is exempted, the Supreme Court decided to examine the issue and sought response from the Centre.
-−
-A bench of justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar of the HC differed in their reading of the exception under section 375 IPC that shields husbands from a rape charge by wives.
-−
-Justice Shakdher, who headed the division bench , had favoured striking down the marital rape exception and said it would be tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years since the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But Justice Shankar, had said the exception under the rape law is not unconstitutional and was based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the exception as well as section 375 (rape) of the IPC itself.
-−
-As the High Court had allowed the parties to approach the Supreme Court for a final say on the matter saying it involved substantial questions of law which required a decision by the top court, the PIL petitioners filed appeal in the apex court.
-−
-The HC’s split verdict came on PILs filed in 2015 and 2017 by NGOs RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women’s Association, a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape law. Later two NGOs — Men Welfare Trust (MWT) and Hridey — joined the proceedings opposing the batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape.
-−
-Agreeing to hear their plea, the apex court issued notice on petitions challenging Exception 2 to Section 375 which provides that charges of rape cannot be attracted against a man who has non-consensual sex with his wife. The bench said that similar matter was also pending in the court and posted the case for February for hearing.
-−
 == HC: Non-consensual sex with wife not rape==

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 =Court judgements=
 == HC: Non-consensual sex with wife not rape==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F04%2F03&entity=Ar00824&sk=8D938E3A&mode=text  April 3, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 273: / Line 305: @@
 Shakdher, who headed the bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and for being “steeped in patriarchy and misogyny. ”
 =The position in other countries=