September 10, 2026 10:06 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Firebrand Tukaram Mundhe’s Food Safety Blitz Hits ISKCON Juhu, 3 Licences Suspended | Vande Mataram row erupts in INDIA bloc: Congress objects, ally NC hits back, BJP pounces | Ahmedabad horror: Woman allegedly killed by father, brother to preserve ‘family honour’ over viral photo with male friend | MEA distances itself from Eiffel Tower-BAPS row, says dispute is ‘between entities concerned’ | Eiffel Tower staff strike after female workers 'sidelined' during Hindu group visit | ‘When will character assassination of women stop?’ Kangana Ranaut amid Udhayanidhi-Trisha row | 11 arms instead of 10! Suvendu Adhikari apologises over Durga image in Bengal govt ad amid Bageshwar Baba row | ‘Meat is core to Shakta Hinduism’: PM Modi adviser hits back at Bageshwar Baba over non-veg ban appeal | ‘No one can dictate what Bengalis eat’: BJP’s blunt message amid Bageshwar Baba’s Durga Puja food row | Delhi hostel collapse: Owner detained after seven die in Satya Niketan tragedy
Marital Rape

Marital rape split verdict challenged in Supreme Court

| @indiablooms | May 17, 2022, at 06:26 pm

New Delhi/UNI: A petition was moved in the Supreme Court Tuesday challenging a Delhi High Court's split verdict on the criminalisation of marital rape.

Khushboo Saifi, one of the original petitioners in the high court, had filed the application that was registered by the apex court Tuesday.

On May 11, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice Rajiv Shakdher and comprising Justice C Hari Shankar, passed the split verdict on a batch of petitions seeking to do away with Exception 2 of the rape law under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

The exception sets that forcible sexual intercourse by a man with his wife is not rape unless the wife is below 15 years of age.

Justice Shakdher had held that the exception was "unconstitutional".

"The impugned provisions in so far as they concern a husband having intercourse with his wife without consent are violative of Article 14 [right to equality] and are struck down," he said in his judgement.

However, Justice Shankar said he disagreed and refused to do away with immunity bestowed on husbands. Justice Shankar upheld the validity of sections 376B (sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation is punishable) and 198B (no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable where the persons are in a marital relationship).

Saifi pleaded with the Supreme Court for a relook seeking criminalising marital rape case.

She is the first petitioner to knock the doors of the top court challenging the high court's verdict.

She supports Justice Shakdher's verdict and challenges Justice Shankar's.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.