Woman subjected to involuntary sex by husband 'undoubtedly a victim': Supreme Court grapples with marital rape exception
A Karnataka case involving a husband accused of treating his wife like a “sex slave” was presented before the top court.
A woman subjected to involuntary sexual intercourse by her husband is “undoubtedly a victim”, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, while grappling with the larger question whether such a husband can nevertheless be prosecuted for rape when the law – as it stands today, expressly excludes marital intercourse from the offence.

A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant and comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana wondered whether a constitutional court could permit such a prosecution before deciding the validity of the statutory exception under Section 375 of IPC, now carried forward under BNS.
“The question is also how a person can be punished for his conduct when the offence itself is defined in a particular manner,” observed the bench as it heard a clutch of petitions challenging the exception that protects a husband from prosecution for rape of his wife, along with an appeal arising from a Karnataka High Court ruling that allowed prosecution of a husband accused of treating his wife virtually as a “sex slave”.
ALSO READ | ‘Everyone’s equal before us’: SC to defamation complainant against Rahul Gandhi
Karnataka case may be heard first
The bench said it might hear the Karnataka case first to examine whether the existing provision could be read down to permit prosecution, before taking up the direct constitutional challenge to the exception.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the wife in the Karnataka case, argued that the HC had not struck down the exception but had interpreted the existing law to permit prosecution in the circumstances of that case. The bench flagged the difficulty of interpreting an express statutory exception in a manner that could expose a person to criminal liability.
ALSO READ | Judiciary must not fear scrutiny
Batch listed after three weeks
The bench asked the nodal counsel to compile the pleadings and common compilations and listed the batch for final hearing after three weeks.
ABOUT THE AUTHORUtkarsh AnandUtkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry. He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy. His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments. He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact. Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses. His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms. A Chevening South Asia Journalism Programme Fellow, Utkarsh regularly writes analyses on the judiciary and constitutional issues, and his reporting is widely followed by lawyers, judges, policymakers, academics and readers seeking clarity on India's evolving legal landscape.Read More

E-Paper


