<p>Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash a lower court's order acquitting a man of the charge of unnatural sex with his wife.</p>.<p>Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi of the Indore bench of the high court, after considering the arguments of both the parties, rejected the review petition of the man's wife on April 7.</p>.<p>The court said that in view of the foregoing discussion, the present revision petition fails as it has no merits, and therefore, dismissed.</p>.<p>The single judge bench dismissed the woman's plea in light of different judicial precedents of the apex court and the high court.</p>.<p>One of these precedents states that "if an unnatural sex takes place between two persons of either same gender or different gender with the consent of both the parties, then it would not be an offence under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)".</p>.<p>In this example, it has also been said that marital rape has not been recognized so far.</p>.<p>The husband of the woman who approached the high court was acquitted by an additional sessions court in Indore on February 3, 2024 of the charge of unnatural sexual act with her. The charge was levelled under section 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC.</p>.<p>The counsel for the petitioner (wife) submitted in the high court that despite overwhelming evidence, the husband (respondent number 2) has been discharged from offence under section 377 of IPC, which is bad in law. The counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing this petition.</p>.<p>The counsel appearing for the husband, however, vehemently opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order on the ground that an offence under section 377 of IPC has been declared as unconstitutional by the apex court as per the amended definition of 'rape' under IPC section 375 during subsistence of marriage sexual intercourse with wife does not constitute an offence under IPC section 377. </p>
<p>Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash a lower court's order acquitting a man of the charge of unnatural sex with his wife.</p>.<p>Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi of the Indore bench of the high court, after considering the arguments of both the parties, rejected the review petition of the man's wife on April 7.</p>.<p>The court said that in view of the foregoing discussion, the present revision petition fails as it has no merits, and therefore, dismissed.</p>.<p>The single judge bench dismissed the woman's plea in light of different judicial precedents of the apex court and the high court.</p>.<p>One of these precedents states that "if an unnatural sex takes place between two persons of either same gender or different gender with the consent of both the parties, then it would not be an offence under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)".</p>.<p>In this example, it has also been said that marital rape has not been recognized so far.</p>.<p>The husband of the woman who approached the high court was acquitted by an additional sessions court in Indore on February 3, 2024 of the charge of unnatural sexual act with her. The charge was levelled under section 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC.</p>.<p>The counsel for the petitioner (wife) submitted in the high court that despite overwhelming evidence, the husband (respondent number 2) has been discharged from offence under section 377 of IPC, which is bad in law. The counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing this petition.</p>.<p>The counsel appearing for the husband, however, vehemently opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order on the ground that an offence under section 377 of IPC has been declared as unconstitutional by the apex court as per the amended definition of 'rape' under IPC section 375 during subsistence of marriage sexual intercourse with wife does not constitute an offence under IPC section 377. </p>