Sex with wife under 18 will be considered rape: Supreme Court

Agencies
October 11, 2017

New Delhi, Oct 11: In a sensational verdict, the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday ruled that sex with a wife who is under 18 years of age is rape and therefore a crime.

The top court did not rule on 'marital rape', which is sexual intercourse forced upon a spouse no matter what their age.

Before today's SC ruling, there was an exception in Section 375 rape law provisions that protected a man who had sexual relations with his wife even if she was under 18, which is the age of consent.

"Exception 2 in Section 375 of IPC (Indian Penal Code) granting protection to husband is violative of constitution and fundamental rights of minor bride', says Supreme Court.

The top court's verdict upholds the rights of 2.3 crore child brides in the country.

The SC rejected the plea of the Centre which justified the provision on the grounds that child marriage is a reality in the country and such marriage has to be protected.

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur had on September 6 asked the Centre how Parliament could create an exception in a law when the age of consent is 18.

Also in September, the apex court had said it did not want to go into the aspect of marital rape, but when the age of consent was 18 years for "all purposes", why was such an exception made in the IPC.

Responding to the query, the Centre's counsel had said if this exception under the IPC goes, then it would open up the arena of marital rape+ which does not exist in India.

"Economic and educational development in the country is still uneven and child marriages are still taking place. It has been therefore decided to retain the age of 15 years under Exception 2 so as to give protection to husband and wife against criminalising the sexual activity between them. It is also estimated that there are 23 million child brides in the country. Hence, criminalising the consummation of a marriage with such a serious offence such as rape would not be appropriate and practical," the Centre had said.

As per the National Family Health Survey, 46 per cent of women between the ages of 18-29 years were married before the age of 18.
 

Comments

U NEED TO GO THRU STATISTICS... Many girls IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY are threatened and raped before they get to the marriage age from their own family members as well as the saints , most of them are in jails... 

PK
 - 
Thursday, 12 Oct 2017

Some community girls are used and misused by the men and the girl tolerates b4 the marriage. The drunken men alwz escape with cheddi culture by threatening the young girls and their parents.... Go thru the statistics... It is better to get married and take responsibility of the family if the girl is ready to marry.

 

Shareef
 - 
Thursday, 12 Oct 2017

Dear Prathima,

You said some communities like under age girls for..,  

see my sister, what difference does it make age below 18 to 15. Do they have more power than girls above 18. 

does girl become very old if she is above 18.  Above 18means usually it can go upto 28.

95% marriage of girls take place between 16-30

May God protect our girls and boys also.

 

Sharifaka
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Only the girl can say if she has been raped or not

what about other religion girls starts having sex immediate after puberty? even some try when they enter  highschool.

MSMS
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Listen carefully,  the above text says :

    "  Sex with a wife who is under 18yrs of  age is rape and therefore a crime. "

 

It interpretes as child marriage is invalid.

If the marriage is invalid how do they become wife and husband.

So this rule may does not applicable such wife.

 

Naresh
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

This law is not thought through. Judges need the input of psychologists to understand the behaviour of adolescents. There are teenagers today having relationships before 18. Are they going to throw them in jail?

Ibrahm
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Ridiculous judgement. Marriage is society's way of allowing for the purpose of having children, since the married couple will then have to make the necessary sacrifices to bring up the children. If under 18 is statutory rape then why allow the marriage in the first place? The SC is coming up in many cases with foolish decisions that are against accepted norms and practices. The SC will risk making itself into an impotent body if it does not have a clue on how this is viewed by the people at large.

Unknown
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Underage marriage is still practiced by muslims 

Stranger
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Many pedophile worshipers belonging to a piece full community disguising as hindu are venting their anger against this judgement for reasons very well known to all. next we should ban all books / texts /manuals/biographies which eulogizes pedophiles/ pedophilia.

Prathima
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Some community men like young underage girls for . We welcome the order.

Sreenath
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

Is its applicable only to Hindus or is it also applicable to Muslims? ..I see lot of them getting married at 15year 2 children by 18yrs..

Manish Raj
 - 
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2017

What if the wife does not tell the husband the correct age and inter course is consensual? Later on there is marital discord, can then it be considered as rape?

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Dubai, Feb 19: A 25-year-old Indian engineer allegedly fell to his death from a residential apartment in Dubai, according to a media report.

Sabeel Rahman, from Kerala who has been living in Dubai since 2018, fell off the building near his work site, The Khaleej Times quoted a social worker as saying.

Naseer Vatanapally, the social worker, is assisting the family to repatriate his mortal remains back home to Thirur in Malappuram district, the report said.

"The case is a bit unusual. We''re not sure why he went to the building near his worksite," said Naseer Vatanapally.

"His family is unaware of any issues he may have faced. He had asked his brother to collect a new mobile phone he had purchased online - which they received. He had no reason to take his life," he added.

Rahman was the youngest of four siblings. The devastated family is awaiting details from the Rashidiya Police Station. "Following legal procedures, we will repatriate his body back home," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 29,2020

Chamaranagara, Mar 29: As many as 595 Tamil Nadu-based fishermen, who were working in Mangaluru, crossed the Karnataka border and reached their state via Chamarajanagar on Saturday.

Police said following the lockdown, the fishermen had left Mangaluru in more than 20 vehicles. The fishermen crossed the Karnataka border through Punajur check-post. However, the vehicles returned after dropping them near Hasanur check-post in Tamil Nadu.

As the fishermen had no proper documents, they were stopped by Tamil Nadu Police. However, the police allowed them after screening. The Tamil Nadu government arranged vehicles to ferry them, said a police officer.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.