The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that forced unnatural sex by a husband is cruelty under Section 498A IPC but cannot be treated as rape because of the marital exception under Section 375 IPC. The Court quashed rape and unnatural offence charges while allowing other charges to continue.
JABALPUR: The Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered an important judgment explaining the legal position on allegations of forced unnatural sex within marriage. Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta clarified that while such conduct may amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 because Indian law still recognizes the marital exception under Section 375 IPC.
The case arose from a petition filed by a husband seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323 and 294 IPC. The couple had married in June 2022. At the time of marriage, the wife’s parents voluntarily gifted ₹21 lakh in cash and about 15 tolas of gold. Soon after marriage, disputes started between the couple over small issues. The wife alleged that the husband used physical force against her on multiple occasions.
One specific incident was mentioned where, after a quarrel, the husband allegedly assaulted the wife near a temple and hit her head. The matter was initially taken to the Mahila Thana, where counselling was conducted and both returned to live together. Later, the wife alleged that the husband forced physical relations and compelled her to perform unnatural sexual acts without her consent. In August 2023, another alleged assault took place, after which an FIR was registered alleging cruelty, repeated rape, unnatural offences, causing hurt and obscene acts.
The husband approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. He argued that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to a divorce petition he had already filed before the Family Court. He also alleged that he had discovered WhatsApp chats and call records suggesting that the wife was in contact with other persons and that the criminal case was filed to falsely implicate him after confrontation. The Trial Court had rejected his bail, but the High Court had earlier granted him anticipatory bail.
While examining the legal position, the High Court referred to Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC, which states that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, if the wife is above 18 years of age, is not rape. Since Section 376 only punishes rape as defined under Section 375, the marital exception protects the husband from prosecution for rape in such cases.
The Court explained the overlap between Sections 375 and 377 and the effect of amendments made in criminal law. It noted that many acts earlier covered under Section 377 have now been absorbed into the expanded definition of rape under Section 375. However, where the marital exception applies, even consent becomes legally irrelevant for rape, meaning no offence under Section 376 is made out between husband and wife.
The Court clearly recorded its view in the following words:
“But, this Court is also of the opinion that forced unnatural sex by a husband on his wife amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 IPC as in a Section 377 context (unnatural acts), the marital rape concept is not recognized under current law because of the Express marital exception in Section 375″.
Further, while analysing the amended provisions, the Court observed:
“Two things are common in the offence of Section 375 and Section 377 firstly the relationship between whom offence is committed i.e. husband and wife and secondly consent between the offender and victim. As per the amended definition, if offender and victim are husband and wife then consent is immaterial and no offence under Section 375 is made out and as such there is no punishment under Section 376 of IPC”.
The Court also clarified the inconsistency between Section 375 and Section 377 when applied to a marital relationship and stated:
“The offence between husband and wife is not made out under Section 375 as per the repeal made by way of amendment and there is repugnancy in the situation when everything is repealed under Section 375 then how offence under Section 377 would be attracted if it is committed between husband and wife”.
On facts, the Court found that there was no strong medical evidence to support the allegation of unnatural sexual acts. The medical report did not show any injury or definite opinion of acts such as fellatio or buggery. The allegations were mainly oral and were made during an ongoing matrimonial dispute, which made the Court cautious about sustaining such serious charges.
Taking an overall view of the facts, evidence, and legal principles, the Court concluded that the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC could not survive and deserved to be quashed. However, the allegations under Sections 323, 294 and 498A IPC were allowed to continue and will be tested during trial.
The operative direction of the Court stated:
“Hence, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is partly allowed to the extent that offence alleged against the petitioner under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the IPC registered vide crime No.971/2023 is hereby quashed. However, the offence under the same crime number under Sections 323, 294 and 498-A is hereby maintained”.
Explanatory Table – All Laws & Sections Involved In This Case
| Law / Section | What It Means in Simple Terms | How It Applied in This Case |
| Section 375 IPC (Definition of Rape) | Defines what acts amount to rape and includes the marital exception which says sex by a husband with his adult wife is not rape. | Court relied on Exception 2 to hold that sexual acts between husband and adult wife cannot legally amount to rape, even if consent is disputed. |
| Section 376 IPC (Punishment for Rape) | Provides punishment only when rape as defined under Section 375 is proved. | Since marital exception applied, Section 376 could not survive and was quashed. |
| Section 377 IPC (Unnatural Offences) | Earlier punished “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” After constitutional rulings, consensual acts are not criminal. | Court held that between husband and wife, Section 377 cannot be applied when Section 375 itself excludes marital acts; medical evidence was also absent. |
| Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives) | Penalizes mental or physical cruelty to a married woman. | Court ruled that forced unnatural sex by husband can amount to cruelty under Section 498A and this charge will continue for trial. |
| Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily Causing Hurt) | Punishes causing physical injury. | Allegations of assault were found triable and maintained. |
| Section 294 IPC (Obscene Acts / Words in Public) | Punishes obscene acts or language in public causing annoyance. | Court allowed this charge to continue for trial. |
| Section 482 CrPC (Inherent Powers of High Court) | Allows High Court to quash FIR or proceedings to prevent abuse of process. | Petition was filed under this provision to seek quashing of FIR and charges. |
| Section 438 CrPC (Anticipatory Bail) | Protection from arrest in anticipation of arrest. | Accused was earlier granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. |
| Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Provides grounds for divorce including cruelty. | Husband had filed a divorce petition before FIR was lodged, which he claimed triggered false case. |
| Bhajan Lal Guidelines (Supreme Court) | Framework for quashing FIRs when proceedings are malicious or legally barred. | Court relied on these principles while partly quashing the FIR. |
| Navtej Singh Johar Judgment | Decriminalized consensual same-sex relations and narrowed Section 377. | Used to explain how Section 377 has become partly redundant after amendments. |
| Kuldeep Singh Judgment (Supreme Court) | Reaffirmed marital exception under Section 375 IPC. | Used to support that rape charge cannot stand between legally married adults. |
Case Details
- Case Title: X vs Y MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54650 of 2023
- Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior
- Bench (Judge): Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta
- Date of Order: 7 January 2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:621
- Crime Number: Crime No. 971/2023, Police Station Kotwali, District Morena
- Sections Originally Invoked in FIR: Sections 498A, 376(2)(n), 377, 323, 294 IPC
Counsels
| Side | Counsel |
| Petitioner | Shri Harshit Sharma, Advocate |
| State | Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar, Public Prosecutor |
| Respondent No.2 | Shri Yogesh Singhal, Advocate |
Final Outcome
| Section | Status |
| Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Quashed |
| Section 377 IPC | Quashed |
| Section 498A IPC | Maintained for trial |
| Section 323 IPC | Maintained for trial |
| Section 294 IPC | Maintained for trial |
Key Takeaways
- Marital relationship still legally blocks rape prosecution, proving that emotional allegations cannot override statutory protection under Section 375 IPC.
- Section 377 misuse in matrimonial disputes continues to collapse in court when medical proof and legal consistency are examined seriously.
- False or retaliatory FIRs after divorce filings remain a recurring abuse pattern, exposing how criminal law is weaponised in family conflicts.
- Courts are increasingly filtering exaggerated sexual allegations while allowing only genuinely triable offences to proceed.
- Men remain legally vulnerable to cruelty charges even when rape accusations fail, highlighting the imbalance and need for gender-neutral safeguards.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.