Can husband establish sexual relationship with his own minor wife?

According to Exception 2 to section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

POCSO Act, 2012 doesn't provide any such exception in the statute book.

On 11/10/2017, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a writ petition(Independent Thought vs Union of India), concerning to the above-mentioned subject matter, partially struck down Exception 2 to section 375 IPC and held that, the Exception carved out in the IPC creates an unnecessary and artificial distinction between a married girl child and an unmarried girl child and has no rational nexus with any unclear objective sought to be achieved. The artificial distinction is arbitrary and discriminatory and is definitely not in the best interest of the girl child. The artificial distinction is contrary to the philosophy and ethos of Article 15(3) of the Constitution as well as contrary to Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution and our commitments in international conventions.

Court also noted that, in the year 1940, the age of consent was 16 years, the age of marriage was 15 years and the age under the Exception was also 15 years; in 1975, the age of consent was 16 years, the age of marriage was 18 years, but the age under the Exception remained 15 years. That may have been there because there was no change in the age of consent under clause sixthly. Now when the age of consent is changed to 18 years, the minimum age of marriage is also 18 years and, therefore, fixing a lower age under Exception 2 is totally irrational. It strikes against the concept of equality. It violates the right of fair treatment of the girl child, who is unable to look after herself. The magic figure of 15 years is not based on any scientific evaluation, but is based on the mere fact that it has been existing for a long time. The age of 15 years in Exception 2 was fixed in the year 1940 when the minimum age for marriage was also 15 and the age of consent under clause Sixthly was 16. In the present context when the age for marriage has been fixed at 18 years and when the age of consent is also fixed at 18 years, keeping the age under Exception 2 at 15 years, can not be said to be right, just and fair. In fact, it is arbitrary and oppressive to the girl child.

The answer of the question is in negative since with the effect of the above discussed judgment, (Independent thought vs Union of India) any sexual relationship established by husband with his minor wife is rape under section 375 of IPC and therefore, punishable under section 376 of IPC. Apart from this, such relationships shall also be punishable under various provisions of POCSO Act, 2012.

(Note - Currently, under Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006, child marriages are valid, but voidable at the option of the minor involved.)

Comments

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...

Legally Sane

Search This Blog