A Woman’s Right to Refuse Unnatural Sex Must Be Respected, Even in Marriage” – Allahabad High Court

“A woman, despite being a wife, also has an individual right to particular sexual orientation and dignity” – Court Declares Unnatural Intercourse Without Wife’s Consent Punishable Under Section 377 IPC - On May 6, 2025, the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Imran Khan @ Ashok Ratna v. State of U.P. and Another, rejecting the application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, and firmly upholding that a woman’s autonomy, dignity, and right to bodily integrity do not vanish upon marriage. The court ruled that non-consensual unnatural sex by a husband, even with his wife over 18 years, is punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

This ruling decisively departs from previous High Court interpretations that excluded such conduct from criminal prosecution within marriage, reinforcing that the concept of marital autonomy must yield to fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The matter arose from a quashing petition filed by the applicant relating to offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR, lodged in February 2023 by the wife (Opposite Party No. 2), alleged multiple instances of cruelty, dowry harassment, and non-consensual unnatural sexual acts during the course of the marriage. The applicant argued that the FIR was delayed, the medical examination was not conducted, and Section 377 IPC could not apply between husband and wife.

The core legal issue was whether non-consensual carnal intercourse by a husband with his wife constitutes an offence under Section 377 IPC, especially after the amendments to Section 375 IPC in 2013 and the decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts under Section 377 by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.

The High Court clarified: “This court holds that unnatural sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife without her consent, even if she is above 18 years, would be punishable u/s 377 IPC though that may not be rape as per Section 375 IPC.”

In rejecting the reasoning of previous Madhya Pradesh High Court judgments (Manish Sahu and Shashank Harsh), the Court emphasized that those interpretations wrongly prioritized the exception under Section 375 over a woman’s fundamental rights: “A wife may be above 18 years but as an individual identity she has a choice for sexual orientation that has to be protected... her fundamental right not to give consent against the unnatural sex cannot be taken away.”

The Court further quoted from Navtej Singh Johar, observing: “Dignity has been duly recognised as an important aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

And from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, reiterating that: “Privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality.”

These constitutional rights, the Court held, are equally applicable within the marital bond.

In regard to allegations under Sections 498A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court refused to interfere with the proceedings. Even though there was no specific dowry demand, the Court noted:

“Cruelty committed by the husband is itself sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section-498A IPC.”

The judgment cited Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao in support of this legal proposition.

The High Court concluded that all grounds raised for quashing the proceedings were misconceived. It held that the FIR, statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and other materials on record disclosed prima facie offences, warranting trial:

“No ground for quashing is made out, therefore, present application is rejected.”

However, the Court allowed liberty to the applicant to seek bail before the appropriate court.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2025