Non-Consensual Unnatural Sex Between Husband And Wife Is Not Rape, Says Allahabad Court: Details Inside

Allahabad High Court Ruling On Non-Consensual Unnatural Sex

Non-Consensual Unnatural Sex by Husband is Punishable Under Section 377 IPC: Allahabad High Court https://t.co/xUct0qYXjf

— The Legal Catalyst (@Legalcatalyst_) May 7, 2025

TheAllahabad High Court gave a landmark ruling recently, stating that non-consensual unnatural sex acts, even within the sanctity of marriage, are not beyond the reach of criminal law. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that such acts are punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), during the judgement over the matter 'Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna v State of UP, even if it doesn't fall within the purview of 'rape' as per the definition under Section 375.

At the core of the ruling lies a profound judicial stance: that consent is not forfeited by matrimony. While the Indian Penal Code’s Section 375 carves out an exception for husbands in rape cases where the wife is above 18, the Court held that this exemption does not extend to unnatural sexual acts.

Justice Deshwal also clarified that "carnal sex, other than penile-vaginal intercourse, is not a natural orientation of sex for the majority of women," and such acts, when forced, are punishable under Section 377—even within marriage.

However, the ruling stands in direct contradiction to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s interpretation, which held that such acts are non-prosecutable between spouses. The Allahabad Bench asserted that a woman, “despite being a wife, also has an individualright to particular sexual orientation and dignity.”

Don't Miss:Empowering Girls Through Period Education: Why Awareness Should Start Early

The Case And The Consequence

The petitioner, Imran Khan alias Ashok Ratna, had pleadedto quash charges of cruelty, intimidation, and dowry harassment after thewife had alleged physical and mental abuse, including forced unnatural intercourse, and dowry-related violence.The Court dismissed the husband's argument that Section 377 didn't apply to him as a husband, emphasising that the lack of consent was key to determining the offence.

Additionally,the Court placed reliance on constitutional values highlighted in landmark rulings, such as K S Puttaswamy v Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, that marital status does not dilute one’s right to privacy and sexual autonomy.

Don't Miss:Veteran Benefits: VA Announces Major Reforms, Check Key Updates Here

If you liked this story, then please share it. To read more such stories, stay connected to HerZindagi.

Image credits: Freepik