The debate again ignited in Supreme Court on Monday in connection to consent in rape. The court stayed the arrest of a man accused of raping his former live-in partner and asked, “however brutal the husband is… when two people (are) living as husband and wife… can sexual intercourse between them be called rape?”
The court was hearing a petition filed by Vinay Pratap Singh challenging the Allahabad High Court order of 2019 rejecting his plea to quash the FIR registered against him.
A woman who had been in a live-in relationship with Singh for over two years registered a rape complaint against him. She alleged that he raped her in the context of marriage but married some other woman.
“If a couple is living together as man and wife, the husband may be a brutal man, but can you call the act of sexual intercourse between a lawfully wedded man and wife as rape,” asked Chief Justice of India SA Bobde.
As per the complaint, the two were in a romantic relationship and were living together, but she has refused to enter into a sexual relationship till marriage. She claimed that Singh obtained her consent by fraud in February 2014. They went to Manali where they performed all the marriage rituals in Hidimba temple as per her advocate Aditya Vashishtnath. However, the accused denied all the allegations.
“Making a false promise of marriage is wrong. No one should falsely promise marriage and break off. But that is different from saying that the act of sexual intercourse is rape,” noted the apex court bench.
In the complaint, the complainant woman had also claimed that she was brutally exploited by the man. She added that she had to visit the hospital due to injuries in her private parts. The complainant cited another incident where her leg was fractured.
“Then you file a case for assault and marital cruelty. Why file a rape case,” asked CJI Bobde. He also questioned that whether abuse within a relationship of marriage could be considered rape.
Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija appearing for the accused, contended, “It’s a habitual act of this lady. She had committed this act with two others in office.”
The petitioner alleged that the complainant woman had also asked the wife of the accused to kill him if she wants to stay happy in her life. Makhija argued that the complainant woman lodged the FIR under Section 376, Section 504, and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code after he refused to give her money.
The top court granted him protection against the arrest for four weeks but refused to pass any order to quash the FIR. “You apply for discharge from the case in the trial court after evidence is collected,” the bench said.
