SC to hear wife’s plea against husband forcing her to perform unnatural sex

SC to hear wife's plea against husband forcing her to perform unnatural sex
The Supreme Court of India (SC). (File Photo: IANS)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has agreed a plea filed by a woman accusing her husband of forcing her to perform “unnatural” oral sex during their four years of marriage.

A bench of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice M.M. Shantanagoudar issued notice to the husband and sought his response while hearing woman’s plea who also alleged that her husband even filmed all of their encounters without her consent.

Accusing her husband of forcing her to perform oral sex on him, the wife this was nothing but “sex against the order of nature”, which has been categorised as an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the plea, the woman had married the man, a doctor by profession, in Gujarat’s Sabarkanta in 2014 after being engaged to him in 2002 when she was just 15 years old, and he frequently forced her to indulge in oral sex against her wishes and “was incapable of comprehending her objection”.

The petition further stated that the husband also persuaded his wife to record their encounters on video against her wishes.

“She was compelled to put up with the depraved demands, which were often accompanied by threats and physical abuse,” it added.

Unwilling to put up with her husband’s depraved demands anymore, the woman lodged an FIR at Sabarkanta accusing him of rape and unnatural sex.

The husband later approached the Gujarat High Court which stated that the wife’s argument is not ground enough under Section 375 (which defines rape) as there is no provision for marital rape.

The high court had also rejected arguments that allegations constituted an offence under Section 377.

Challenging the high court order, the wife has moved the apex court.

On Tuesday, a five-judge Supreme Court bench had reserved its verdict on petitions seeking decriminalisation of Section 377.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who was part of the bench, had observed during the hearing that oral sex and anal sex between a consenting husband and wife could not be categorised as “unnatural sex” or “sex against the order of nature”.