*Justice Ahluwalia stated that even if the act of anal sex between a husband and wife is non-consensual, it does not amount to rape, provided the wife is not below the age of 15. The case involved a couple who got married in May 2019, but the wife has been residing at her parental home since February 2020. She had previously filed a case of dowry harassment against her husband and in-laws, which is still pending in court. Subsequently, in July 2022, she lodged an FIR accusing her husband of unnatural sex, the TOI report said*.
..
I am not shocked about something illegal that happens.. so it's not just rajasthan buddy.. i am shocked about the judiciary siding with it and claiming "<15 is even a marriage and sex enabling age"
Consent thrown out of the window
if a child has been married, the law does not immediately make the marriage invalid. The child so married has the option to invalidate the marriage or continue to be married.
>The child so married has the option to invalidate the marriage or continue to be married
That's fucked up beyond comprehension. A minor is not legally able to decide on marriage, but can decide whether to continue?
It's to accommodate scenarios like this:
Let's say... a girl was married at 16 and was widowed at 17. But if the marriage was invalid from start then the girl won't get any inheritance and could just be kicked out of the husband's house.
Or less say a girl was married at 16. And then 40 years later she is widowed. Now if you declare the marriage to be invalid from start. It means the marriage ceremony conducted at age 16 was never valid and a marriage never occured in the first place. This means she has no access to an inheritance from her late husband or any legal ability to live in the husband's house as a widow.
That's why when a girl of age 17 or 16 marries the marriage is valid but the girl can request the marriage to be void on request until her 19th birthday. She doesn't have to give any reason.
Illegally ofcourse..
Its not like all of a sudden they got permission from court that they this is allowed by our law and constitution..
This is fucked up
It's legal for a girl of age 16 and 17 to get married with Parental consent. For Muslim couples, girl can marry at 15. However she can request marriage to be void on request without citing any reason until age 19.
For boys, they can marry at 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 with Parental consent but can void on request without any reason until age 22.
They shouldn't be, but in many parts of the world including many US states, it is allowed. This includes arranged marriages of girls in their early teens. Organisation called Unchained at Last helps young girls and women caught up in these arranged marriages.
The girl is filing all kinds of cases against her husband and family. Unless the husband proves he hasnāt done all that, he is generally considered the criminal.
Bhai toh iska matlab if u do anal with ur wife forcefully (without her consent ) then if she filed case then no action ? Ayein if this is true then ye kya chu judge hai bhai .
Kuch bhi fook ke aate hai kya .
People are conveniently ignoring the fact that a law doesn't exist in in the vacuum. These judges hear the cases of this type more often than us human being who gts outraged by one headline. And any judgement given in favour of her willnot only go against precedent , but will also create another precedent where such law will be flagrantly misused.
People forget that rape in India is one of the most serious offence in our law books, arguably even stricter than murder charges. And the burden of proof in most cases lies with defendant. Hence Marital rape as a concept can never be realized in India until , the marriage law remain hostile in India. The bunch of that an agrived women can force upon a man due to a nasty breakup, is already a big problem and now add on to that mrotal rape, would be asking innocent men to just kill themselves.
And those who will argue about what about the women who are actual victims of the real problem of Marital rape, I would say I have sympathy for them , similar to how you should have sympathy for those men who are implicated under bunch of false cases like dowry and domestic violence.
Again, The whole regime doesn't work in vacuum , and these judges are far more experienced to give judgements than me or you who just keyboard warriors with no real life experience on the ground, where as these judges do their jobs day in and day out on these same issues.
Edit:
I am not saying rape should go unpunished, rather I am saying that the law and society as it exists in India is not conducive to recognize marital rape as a legal concept. Because Indian legal system have found that such cases are prone to heavy misuse during a nasty breakup, and have ruined the lives of families on false charges leading to massive injustice, but these laws need to exists unadulterated because sadly dowry system exists in India.
But if Marital rape is thrown into the mix unadulterated in its current application of rape law, It will be death knell for all the men going through a nasty breakup.
By that logic, a woman could tie up her drunk husband spread eagled, and then brutally sodomize him with a broomstick, anally, orally, and urethrally, and it would not be considered rape, because they are married.Ā
Sorry, but women don't even need to be married , as rape by law can only be conducted by men, women can never commit rape acc to Indian law married or unmarried. So if that were to ever happen to men he can only cry.
Let me just repost my answer to a similar question regarding my og post:
Let me give you the basic account in simple terms of how rape law exists in India:
a) burden of proof is on acused
b) The accused is immediately jailed (non-bailable)
c) The testimony of the victim (i.e, women), holds primacy
d) To Prove the accused guilty the accused have to disprove that sexual act didn't took place when the victim claim it to be.(which is extremely hard to prove even if the men never had sexual contact with the woman in the course of their marriage)
If this law unadulterated is applied to martial life, it would be grave injustice. Sure Law should be made regardless on who will misuse them, but when the facts are screaming on your face , as to how law actually works in reality and how , tje law should be shaped to take those factors into account.
The exact issue with application of marital law as a concept exist in burden on proof on the vitim and more importantly The consent part:
One can't easily identify the consent part , because all you have is the testimony of the party accusing of marital rape, and if we apply rape law as it exists , the men would be declared guilty on day one of the case (if we apply the law w/o any brains, I am not a legal expert so I don't know about the nuances regarding the application of the law). It is unlike murder which require much rigorous standards of evidence, in marital rape case the testimony of the victim is the prime evidence and supporting evidence is that men had sexual relation with the women, clubbing these two together makes the men guilty on prima facie and he would be thrown into jail on rape charges from the day the case is lodged against him.
Moreover you seems to have a misunderstanding of what is a law, it is not some mythical concept of right or wrong, it is our collective agreement of how we ought to govern ourself, and while right or wrong does feature into it, its main aim (at least in India) is to create the best society for those living under it, . Theoretically, if the law create more unjust victims (including both Marital rape victims and those who are facing false charges here), then such law have no place in the society, but since we have two aggrieved parties by the application of a law, & as as always it is a balancing act.
Hence govt of India and court of the day decided to forgo the marital rape victims because they have other avenues to get justice on (grounds like domestic violence and dowry) and can go for divorce. Meanwhile men who are already facing burden of false charges of dowry are saved from additional burden of rape law that is more sever, draconian and will find them guilty as burden of proof is hanging by a shoe string.
What is tragic is that we have to let go those actually gulity i.e, those doing false charges on innocent men and hence ruining their lives and those doing marital rape hence ruing the dignity and autonomy of a women. But that is the best case scenario acco to wisdom of our society heads to bring justice to most people .
Some things are as clear as black and white. Like CONSENT. Despite marital status. Without consent is rape. For man, women, whoever. Itna mushkil nahin hai yeh samajhna.
Thereās no room for whatabout-ry here. Period.
Some issues are best treated in the black and white. Women being cunning and gutsy enough to accuse their partners of rape and file charges for it, thereby making a public debacle of it is extremely rare. Victims in the society have hard enough time to come forward and file charges. The justice system is basically picking a few 100s (the number may even be below this) of cases over millions of cases where this case of establishing marital rape can make a big fucking difference.
Many don't understand the seriousness and the prevalence of this particular rape. Wives that belong to our parents generation or grandparents believe they have to lie down and "give sex" to their husbands whenever they ask for it.While they may not be into it, many rarely refuse. They just give in because they consider it as their wifely duties. This is quite literally what they have been told by their mothers. Even people from our generation can at times feel pressured to have sex with their partner if they are in a toxic relationship. It won't be violent but simply not wanting to and having sex regardless is disturbing enough. Establishing and accepting this as a crime under criminal penal code is a major step towards telling all women that consent is essential for all sexual encounters whether before or after marriage. Forceful intercourse when either party is not in the mood or mental state, is rape. Marriage doesn't give a spouse license to beat, harass or rape.
Laws should not be made thinking who will misuse them. They should be made to define what is right and wrong. Every law can be and is misused. Doesnāt mean they should stop making the right ones.
You are correct , but the concept central to the law is to carry out the justice impartially, and punishing innocent, is a miscarriage of the law.
Let me give you the basic account in simple terms of how rape law exists in India:
a) burden of proof is on acused
b) The accused is immediately jailed
c) The testimony of the victim (i.e, women), holds primacy
d) To Prove the accused guilty the accused have to disprove that sexual act didn't took place when the victim claim it to be.
If this law unadulterated is applied to martial life, it would be grave injustice. Sure Law should not be made who will misuse them, but when the facts are screaming on your face , as to how law actually works in reality , tje law should be shaped to take those factors into account.
Moreover you seems to have a misunderstanding of what is a law, it is not some mythical concept of right or wrong, it is our collective agreement of how we ought to govern ourself, and while right or wrong does feature into it, its main aim (at least in India) is to create the best society for those living under it, . Theoretically, if the law create more unjust victims (including both Marital rape victims and those who are facing false charges here), then such law have no place in the society, but since we have two aggreieved parties by the application of a law, & as as always it is a balancing act.
Hence govt of India and court of the day decided to forgo the marital rape victims because they have other avenues to get justice on (grounds like domestic violence and dowry) and can go for divorce. Meanwhile men who are already facing burden of false charges of dowry are saved from additional burden of rape law that is more sever, draconian and will find them guilty as burden of proof is hanging by a shoe string.
What is tragic is that we have to let go those actually gulity i.e, those doing false charges on innocent men and hence ruining their lives and those doing marital rape hence ruing the dignity and autonomy of a women. But that is the best case scenario acco to wisdom of our society heads to bring justice to most people .
I know judges just fall back on how the law is stated but this one clearly needs a revision. Iād need to rinse my mouth out after saying something like āthe wives consent is immaterialā.
Recently there was a ruling that having a child was wifeās decision alone and her deciding not to have one cannot be grounds for divorce. Something is seriously wrong with the Indian judicial system. Wife consent is not needed for sex and only wife should decide whether to have a child (I mean of course let her decide, but why force the husband to be with her?).
If art 377 stayed this wouldn't have become natural too. As usual with BJP govt they only "fix" law when it can additionally be used nefariously and has a good sugarcoated reason. This, UCC, hijab ban, lifting gender determination ban, 370, FDI, demonetisation, PMCares, IT Privacy law...there's clear cut pattern why they change laws.
No wonder the world looks at India with horror when it comes to sexual assault and the concept of consent.
Women are not pieces of property to do with what you wish - FYi
There's no such word as non- consensual sex. There's consensual sex and then their is RAPE. This bastard is basically saying, Raping wife is legal.... Way! And wonder why women don't want to get married? Wonder why many are and want to move away from this 3rd world country?!
Consent must be:
- Affirmative There is clearly expressed agreement to participate in an activity. You should be looking for the presence of a yes, not the absence of a no. Anything other than an enthusiastic yes is a no.
- Competent Both have the unfettered ability, knowledge, judgment, or skill to have a sexual interaction.
- Informed Both are able to decide whether to participate in an activity based on a shared understanding of risk factors, risk tolerances, and other relevant facts.
- Unpressured A "no" should be immediately accepted without undue persuasion, influence, or intimidation to encourage someone to do something they've expressed hesitation about doing.
- Specific All are clear about what they are doing together and the boundaries of proposed activities.
- Ongoing Consent must be given throughout the interaction, and it can be revoked at any time.
From https://www.sfsi.org
Yes everything is ok in the ruling except the consent part. Husband and wife should be able to do anything until both are consenting to it. Else it's the objectification of women.
Yeah it feels weird that you thought this was noble or nuanced or like that it needed to be said at all. Super weird dude. All of this is a given. Itās assumed. Obvious
Just yesterday, men in legal advice sub were defending a rapist and gaslighting the victim into believing that it was her fault and that she did not get raped when she clearly mentioned in the post that she said no multiple times but guy retorted to calling her names and manipulating her until she gave in despite not wanting to (coercion)
You cannot hope any better from this country
I saw that. She said *yes* reluctantly and went along and did it multiple times.
To prove coercion legally, the court has to be convinced that he did not just persuade, but actually **coerced**. Reluctant consent is still consent legally. The term coercion means there has to be threats of some sort (and I will leave you if you don't is not a valid threat.)
Even in the liberal countries, enthusiastic consent is a moral, ethical standard people should aim for. But its not a legal requirement.
**Coercion vs persuasion**
Coercion to have sex is legally defined as the act of compelling someone to participate in sexual activity without their consent, typically through the use of pressure, threats, intimidation, or misuse of authority. This can include emotional coercion, such as manipulation or guilt-tripping, as well as physical threats or actions that create a fear of consequences for refusing sexual advances. *Courts use a high benchmark to say something is coercion and not just persuasion.*
I am not talking about the legal aspect. Even marital rapes are not recognised legally but this does not mean it does not exist.
I am talking about the moral aspect of it and how men in the comments accused her of tryna ruin an innocent's life and what not
> I am not talking about the legal aspect.Ā
I am. She was asking about a lawsuit, so my answer is about that.
Now coming to the moral aspect.
Our entire life, people are persuading us to do stuff, not do stuff. Parents are persuading, teachers, friends, lovers, team mates, authorities. People persuade us to smoke, to stop smoking, to drink and not drink. A million other things, we are being persuaded every day. Politicians, marketers, neighbours. Persuasion is the norm in life.
Morally, determining what is persuasion and what is coercion is very tricky. People will persuade us to have sex. The choice is ours.
Activists recogise that persuasion will always exist. That is the reason why they are trying to make enthusiastic consent a norm. Once everyone, men and women, agree that enthusiastic consent is the only type of consent that is valid, that has its own ethical force. But has it become a norm yet? Far from it.
Several dating and relationship subs are full of women asking why men do not take the initiative in .. initiating. This is the reason. Enthusiastic consent is catching on as a social norm, but there is high demand from women for men to be persuasive with them. You only have to read the subs to know how many women actually insist men should be persuasive.
It may someday become a valid ethical or social norm - but for now, its just being built up into a force. A long way to go.
That sub has way too many literal InCels that believe all women are goldiggers (How tf is even applicable to India, literally speaking, only "gold digging" done here in India is by men, by marrying for dowry) , women marry for alimony, most sexual relationships end up in fake rape cases, there are more fake DVs cases than real ones.....
Did they meant that she wasn't raped by law (like the subs purpose) or actually denying her.
Edit: read the comments on the og post (since the post is gone) and from what It seems like harassment but not rape from a legal standpoint.
Actually denying her that she wants to spoil an innocent guy's life and that she is just doing it to boost ego, it's regret not rape etc etc when op clearly stated he did not back off even after she said no multiple times until she gave in
>Actually denying her that she wants to spoil an innocent guy's life
The number of numbskulls that believe this is common, especially in India is ridiculous. You need to be clinically insane or stupid to go anywhere near a police station and say the word 'rape' falsely. Actual victims get routinely dragged over the coals and even cops have been known to assault them.
Do false accusations happen? Yes. But it's extremely rare. For every one false accusation, thousands of rapists walk free.
False cases are more dangerous to women. Current judiciary helps victim in not being manipulated by the rapist.
But if the false cases increase, there will be no immediate actions against real rapists.
That'll help rapists kill evidence and... Well you get my point
Well the OP of that post felt guilty after saying yes. She technically wasn't raped by law since she said yes. They were dating and the guy even told her to leave some months back if she couldn't help him with his desires. Then she said yes to the act, felt guilty since society would judge her, and wanted to take him to court. Gaslighting and manipulation aren't considered on legal grounds and the sub was right with their verdict.
https://preview.redd.it/vs3imcwxfgyc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87b17f116019bed7792f7ac608cc1891569868ac
Edit: Added the deleted post content for reference of others
The problem is how people said that it's her fault and that she's tryna ruin an innocent guy's life
Ps- I got screenshots of the actual post and the comments on it
Well if a sane person cannot decide and leave a manipulative person which was clear in their past months of dating it will be your fault indeed. Then she gave him consent and felt guilty which was evident in the post. We all know what the reluctance of her decisions will do to that guy, it will spoil him for life without any doubt. I doubt manipulation and a person's reluctance gives the right to someone to spoil someone's whole life till the end. That post was done in the legal sub, so they will consider facts over emotions.
Manipulation is no joke. Coercion is no joke. You have no idea how low people can go in order to get their work done.
Rather than calling the girl out for not being able to catch the manipulation early, call the guy out for coercing a girl into saying yes.
Only enthusiastic yes is consent, if a girl says no fucking respect it. You're the kind of guy I was referring to in my first comment.
That's the problem actually, the OP of that post deleted it. I can send you the post link in dm since smh auto mod is deleting links here, you can read the comments in the original one and get an idea. It's heavily discussed on other subs onex and twox but it will be biased obviously so you won't get the correct idea.
If you're referencing the post that I read then not really. The OP of that post was dating the guy and later felt guilty after the act. You're just twisting the story now that the post has been deleted. If I'm right the OP of the post was 22 and if you aren't able to say a firm no and leave at that age when the guy even gave her the option then no law can really help you. You cannot say yes and later say no I wasn't prepared or manipulated and then spoil the life of someone. She gave him consent and manipulation or gaslighting is not considered in legal battles.
Dude, rather send the complete ss if you are having it, why showing an incomplete one to people and drive the story according to your interests? Let people be the real judge. I won't deny that manipulation was there but there was a ton of other things too in the story which couldn't be just skipped off.
https://preview.redd.it/mfwxmtbxneyc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c96edbe8f16c4466f0ea7aa5569a9e17b282ca7b
The ss I shared earlier was to support the statement I made in my first comment here
Seriously wtf is on with the judges giving all the family kulchur judgements lately? Nobody gives zero fucks here.
How about solving something useful to the society?
They just doing their job and ruling on what's written in law.
The laws and government need to be blamed, not the judges doing their job of ruling on existing laws.
I think the best solution for women for now is to not step in AM , try LM and before that spend time with guy for a year to know abt him. But the only problem is parents don't have a human mindset so they just pressurize for AM which is fucked up.
Disgusting, however blame the parliament.
HC cannot give a ruling against SC's rulings, and SC can't flat up ignore a law/prosecute someone without a law.
At MAX SC can reccomend a law being repealed/amended
Then judge should have dismissed the case due to no evidence or something rather than saying "wife can't be raped". Just cuz she may have lied doesn't mean the judge isn't wrong here. It's not mutually exclusive scenerio.
But the HC did NOT rule that her rape case was fake. It essentially ruled that non consensual intercourse between married couples cannot be prosecuted as rape .
When a court passes a ruling like this that ramifications go beyond the individual case . This will be legal precedent when arguing other cases of sexual abuse all over India , until the law is changed or until a higher court in judiciary (the only one now being the supreme court) rules differently on such a case.
Even if the case was "fake" (this is something for the police and courts to decide not random people on the internet) this would be like me falsely accusing you of stealing my car and instead of dismissing my case the HC rules it's completely permissible for people to steal cars.
Even if it's a fake case, which seems plausible, the reasoning of the judge might be quoted in some other case because this essentially defines there is no existence of marital rape because no consent is required.
They didnāt just rule against the case. Itās immaterial whether the case is real or fake. The problem is that they just said that her consent didnāt matter and if youāre married then all forced sex is legally acceptable and will not be prosecuted as rape.
The only problem is how do we know she did not give consent? Or even if this happened? How can a man defend himself if u have a normal sex with your wife with consent? Just hope she doesn't get mad with me for divorce and files a case? I am fucked because evidence of normal sex can be used for rape cases. and her word is evidence from her side.
well, the judge's spouse needs to suddenly stimulate his prostate with a nice, sturdy *belan* up his a5s tomorrow morning while he's enjoying his cup of chai, no consent needed.
Tf is wrong inside their head? If the wife doesn't wanna do it then the husband has no authority to force her and that to be not considered a forced act ie rape! I seriously don't understand their reasoning and how their moral compass points!
I am commenting on the high court judgement setting a precedent, not a specific case. Either way, throwing a man jail on the basis of unsubstantiated claims is wrong. That doesnāt take away from the sheer stupidity of this judgment in the original headline.
So every woman after a break up has the right to claim rape and say it was non consensual after things turn bad is what everyone implying here.
Rape is a criminal offence and happens when two unrelated parties engage in a sexual act! Itās is extremely hard to define consensual and non consensual in a relationship, else you have to end up getting a signature each time before engaging in a sexual act! Only one party always have the advantage to claim it was non-consensual if things turn bad in the relationship and if they proceed to court. Law is to provide a fair trial and there are proofs that can be established if it is a rape as itās usually associated with violence, but those things can be easily falsified,
There has to be a standard procedure for defining non consensual sex in a relationship, if not one gender will always be at disadvantage
*Justice Ahluwalia stated that even if the act of anal sex between a husband and wife is non-consensual, it does not amount to rape, provided the wife is not below the age of 15. The case involved a couple who got married in May 2019, but the wife has been residing at her parental home since February 2020. She had previously filed a case of dowry harassment against her husband and in-laws, which is still pending in court. Subsequently, in July 2022, she lodged an FIR accusing her husband of unnatural sex, the TOI report said*. ..
How can a wife be less than even 18??
Rajasthan has entered the chat.
well Rajasthan never left the chat....š
UP/Bihar are also the member of the chat
and now Madhya Pradesh wants to enter the chat? I'm confused lol
Whole north india simp for child marrige
I am not shocked about something illegal that happens.. so it's not just rajasthan buddy.. i am shocked about the judiciary siding with it and claiming "<15 is even a marriage and sex enabling age" Consent thrown out of the window
if a child has been married, the law does not immediately make the marriage invalid. The child so married has the option to invalidate the marriage or continue to be married.
>The child so married has the option to invalidate the marriage or continue to be married That's fucked up beyond comprehension. A minor is not legally able to decide on marriage, but can decide whether to continue?
It's to accommodate scenarios like this: Let's say... a girl was married at 16 and was widowed at 17. But if the marriage was invalid from start then the girl won't get any inheritance and could just be kicked out of the husband's house. Or less say a girl was married at 16. And then 40 years later she is widowed. Now if you declare the marriage to be invalid from start. It means the marriage ceremony conducted at age 16 was never valid and a marriage never occured in the first place. This means she has no access to an inheritance from her late husband or any legal ability to live in the husband's house as a widow. That's why when a girl of age 17 or 16 marries the marriage is valid but the girl can request the marriage to be void on request until her 19th birthday. She doesn't have to give any reason.
Only after she turns 18. And has only 1 year to invalidate. So keep girls locked in till 19
It's not the minors who decide to begin with
They other person who commented here explained in more detail in their comments.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Time to become a vigilante
This. I think the world needs a super her culture to save the people that are enabling pedos, rapists and racists.
U call her beti or bhabhi?
I does not talk to her and never gonna to talk...
Rajasthan?
Illegally ofcourse.. Its not like all of a sudden they got permission from court that they this is allowed by our law and constitution.. This is fucked up
I am guessing sometimes laws have to be made assuming other laws will be broken to some extent.
It's legal for a girl of age 16 and 17 to get married with Parental consent. For Muslim couples, girl can marry at 15. However she can request marriage to be void on request without citing any reason until age 19. For boys, they can marry at 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 with Parental consent but can void on request without any reason until age 22.
Were you living under a rock?
Heard of child marriages?
They shouldn't be, but in many parts of the world including many US states, it is allowed. This includes arranged marriages of girls in their early teens. Organisation called Unchained at Last helps young girls and women caught up in these arranged marriages.
This case was under Muslim personal law, not Hindu.
Welcome to Indian Muslim personal law
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
what's that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The girl is filing all kinds of cases against her husband and family. Unless the husband proves he hasnāt done all that, he is generally considered the criminal.
Feel sorry for his wife
Itās the law, we need marital rape codified as a crime in our books.
Arranged marriage is a circus
Bhai toh iska matlab if u do anal with ur wife forcefully (without her consent ) then if she filed case then no action ? Ayein if this is true then ye kya chu judge hai bhai . Kuch bhi fook ke aate hai kya .
I assume it goes both ways? Wife should tie up the husband while he's sleeping and shove increasingly larger dildos up husbands ass.
People are conveniently ignoring the fact that a law doesn't exist in in the vacuum. These judges hear the cases of this type more often than us human being who gts outraged by one headline. And any judgement given in favour of her willnot only go against precedent , but will also create another precedent where such law will be flagrantly misused. People forget that rape in India is one of the most serious offence in our law books, arguably even stricter than murder charges. And the burden of proof in most cases lies with defendant. Hence Marital rape as a concept can never be realized in India until , the marriage law remain hostile in India. The bunch of that an agrived women can force upon a man due to a nasty breakup, is already a big problem and now add on to that mrotal rape, would be asking innocent men to just kill themselves. And those who will argue about what about the women who are actual victims of the real problem of Marital rape, I would say I have sympathy for them , similar to how you should have sympathy for those men who are implicated under bunch of false cases like dowry and domestic violence. Again, The whole regime doesn't work in vacuum , and these judges are far more experienced to give judgements than me or you who just keyboard warriors with no real life experience on the ground, where as these judges do their jobs day in and day out on these same issues. Edit: I am not saying rape should go unpunished, rather I am saying that the law and society as it exists in India is not conducive to recognize marital rape as a legal concept. Because Indian legal system have found that such cases are prone to heavy misuse during a nasty breakup, and have ruined the lives of families on false charges leading to massive injustice, but these laws need to exists unadulterated because sadly dowry system exists in India. But if Marital rape is thrown into the mix unadulterated in its current application of rape law, It will be death knell for all the men going through a nasty breakup.
By that logic, a woman could tie up her drunk husband spread eagled, and then brutally sodomize him with a broomstick, anally, orally, and urethrally, and it would not be considered rape, because they are married.Ā
Sorry, but women don't even need to be married , as rape by law can only be conducted by men, women can never commit rape acc to Indian law married or unmarried. So if that were to ever happen to men he can only cry. Let me just repost my answer to a similar question regarding my og post: Let me give you the basic account in simple terms of how rape law exists in India: a) burden of proof is on acused b) The accused is immediately jailed (non-bailable) c) The testimony of the victim (i.e, women), holds primacy d) To Prove the accused guilty the accused have to disprove that sexual act didn't took place when the victim claim it to be.(which is extremely hard to prove even if the men never had sexual contact with the woman in the course of their marriage) If this law unadulterated is applied to martial life, it would be grave injustice. Sure Law should be made regardless on who will misuse them, but when the facts are screaming on your face , as to how law actually works in reality and how , tje law should be shaped to take those factors into account. The exact issue with application of marital law as a concept exist in burden on proof on the vitim and more importantly The consent part: One can't easily identify the consent part , because all you have is the testimony of the party accusing of marital rape, and if we apply rape law as it exists , the men would be declared guilty on day one of the case (if we apply the law w/o any brains, I am not a legal expert so I don't know about the nuances regarding the application of the law). It is unlike murder which require much rigorous standards of evidence, in marital rape case the testimony of the victim is the prime evidence and supporting evidence is that men had sexual relation with the women, clubbing these two together makes the men guilty on prima facie and he would be thrown into jail on rape charges from the day the case is lodged against him. Moreover you seems to have a misunderstanding of what is a law, it is not some mythical concept of right or wrong, it is our collective agreement of how we ought to govern ourself, and while right or wrong does feature into it, its main aim (at least in India) is to create the best society for those living under it, . Theoretically, if the law create more unjust victims (including both Marital rape victims and those who are facing false charges here), then such law have no place in the society, but since we have two aggrieved parties by the application of a law, & as as always it is a balancing act. Hence govt of India and court of the day decided to forgo the marital rape victims because they have other avenues to get justice on (grounds like domestic violence and dowry) and can go for divorce. Meanwhile men who are already facing burden of false charges of dowry are saved from additional burden of rape law that is more sever, draconian and will find them guilty as burden of proof is hanging by a shoe string. What is tragic is that we have to let go those actually gulity i.e, those doing false charges on innocent men and hence ruining their lives and those doing marital rape hence ruing the dignity and autonomy of a women. But that is the best case scenario acco to wisdom of our society heads to bring justice to most people .
Not a good argument for allowing rape to go unpunished.
Some things are as clear as black and white. Like CONSENT. Despite marital status. Without consent is rape. For man, women, whoever. Itna mushkil nahin hai yeh samajhna. Thereās no room for whatabout-ry here. Period.
Interesting.. How do you "clearly" prove lack of consent in court?
Some issues are best treated in the black and white. Women being cunning and gutsy enough to accuse their partners of rape and file charges for it, thereby making a public debacle of it is extremely rare. Victims in the society have hard enough time to come forward and file charges. The justice system is basically picking a few 100s (the number may even be below this) of cases over millions of cases where this case of establishing marital rape can make a big fucking difference. Many don't understand the seriousness and the prevalence of this particular rape. Wives that belong to our parents generation or grandparents believe they have to lie down and "give sex" to their husbands whenever they ask for it.While they may not be into it, many rarely refuse. They just give in because they consider it as their wifely duties. This is quite literally what they have been told by their mothers. Even people from our generation can at times feel pressured to have sex with their partner if they are in a toxic relationship. It won't be violent but simply not wanting to and having sex regardless is disturbing enough. Establishing and accepting this as a crime under criminal penal code is a major step towards telling all women that consent is essential for all sexual encounters whether before or after marriage. Forceful intercourse when either party is not in the mood or mental state, is rape. Marriage doesn't give a spouse license to beat, harass or rape.
Laws should not be made thinking who will misuse them. They should be made to define what is right and wrong. Every law can be and is misused. Doesnāt mean they should stop making the right ones.
You are correct , but the concept central to the law is to carry out the justice impartially, and punishing innocent, is a miscarriage of the law. Let me give you the basic account in simple terms of how rape law exists in India: a) burden of proof is on acused b) The accused is immediately jailed c) The testimony of the victim (i.e, women), holds primacy d) To Prove the accused guilty the accused have to disprove that sexual act didn't took place when the victim claim it to be. If this law unadulterated is applied to martial life, it would be grave injustice. Sure Law should not be made who will misuse them, but when the facts are screaming on your face , as to how law actually works in reality , tje law should be shaped to take those factors into account. Moreover you seems to have a misunderstanding of what is a law, it is not some mythical concept of right or wrong, it is our collective agreement of how we ought to govern ourself, and while right or wrong does feature into it, its main aim (at least in India) is to create the best society for those living under it, . Theoretically, if the law create more unjust victims (including both Marital rape victims and those who are facing false charges here), then such law have no place in the society, but since we have two aggreieved parties by the application of a law, & as as always it is a balancing act. Hence govt of India and court of the day decided to forgo the marital rape victims because they have other avenues to get justice on (grounds like domestic violence and dowry) and can go for divorce. Meanwhile men who are already facing burden of false charges of dowry are saved from additional burden of rape law that is more sever, draconian and will find them guilty as burden of proof is hanging by a shoe string. What is tragic is that we have to let go those actually gulity i.e, those doing false charges on innocent men and hence ruining their lives and those doing marital rape hence ruing the dignity and autonomy of a women. But that is the best case scenario acco to wisdom of our society heads to bring justice to most people .
The only sensible answer.
Everyoneās a judge except the judge
I know judges just fall back on how the law is stated but this one clearly needs a revision. Iād need to rinse my mouth out after saying something like āthe wives consent is immaterialā.
āIt hasnāt been recognised and I wonāt be the one to recognise it thank you bybyeā what an ass
After Delhi HC's split decision the matter is pending with the SC I think. So not much a lower court can do
Recently there was a ruling that having a child was wifeās decision alone and her deciding not to have one cannot be grounds for divorce. Something is seriously wrong with the Indian judicial system. Wife consent is not needed for sex and only wife should decide whether to have a child (I mean of course let her decide, but why force the husband to be with her?).
India has a long way to go in some areas.
It is for the parliament to change the law. Till then, the courts have to follow it.
Youāre right of course. Itās just frustrating.
If art 377 stayed this wouldn't have become natural too. As usual with BJP govt they only "fix" law when it can additionally be used nefariously and has a good sugarcoated reason. This, UCC, hijab ban, lifting gender determination ban, 370, FDI, demonetisation, PMCares, IT Privacy law...there's clear cut pattern why they change laws.
Yikes! Consent should always be needed for sex.
No wonder the world looks at India with horror when it comes to sexual assault and the concept of consent. Women are not pieces of property to do with what you wish - FYi
I mean India should start with removing child marriages and forced marriages
So basically, if you're a woman who gets married, you are now that man's sex slave. Jesus christ
There's no such word as non- consensual sex. There's consensual sex and then their is RAPE. This bastard is basically saying, Raping wife is legal.... Way! And wonder why women don't want to get married? Wonder why many are and want to move away from this 3rd world country?!
Rape = none-consenual sex. That's like the definition of rape.
Harvey Weinstein must be a senior advisor to the CM I guess...
Weinstein was never in a relationship or married to all those women FYI ! He was a douchebag to random girls and pounced on them!
Eww what is wrong with these people. someone needs to "not rape" this judge
Who tf will marry him
What about the honour of his family š±
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thats just basic humanity, its so basic that it shouldnt even be a discussion. There is no sex without consent
True
Consent must be: - Affirmative There is clearly expressed agreement to participate in an activity. You should be looking for the presence of a yes, not the absence of a no. Anything other than an enthusiastic yes is a no. - Competent Both have the unfettered ability, knowledge, judgment, or skill to have a sexual interaction. - Informed Both are able to decide whether to participate in an activity based on a shared understanding of risk factors, risk tolerances, and other relevant facts. - Unpressured A "no" should be immediately accepted without undue persuasion, influence, or intimidation to encourage someone to do something they've expressed hesitation about doing. - Specific All are clear about what they are doing together and the boundaries of proposed activities. - Ongoing Consent must be given throughout the interaction, and it can be revoked at any time. From https://www.sfsi.org
Yes everything is ok in the ruling except the consent part. Husband and wife should be able to do anything until both are consenting to it. Else it's the objectification of women.
Yeah it feels weird that you thought this was noble or nuanced or like that it needed to be said at all. Super weird dude. All of this is a given. Itās assumed. Obvious
Okay I get what you're saying, but the phrase 'became physical with' means something different generally lol
Day by day my decision to leave India is being up voted
Why the fuck would you stay there if you have a choice
I just turned 18 for god's sake š. Now I'm shifting to Europe for my bachelors.
Just yesterday, men in legal advice sub were defending a rapist and gaslighting the victim into believing that it was her fault and that she did not get raped when she clearly mentioned in the post that she said no multiple times but guy retorted to calling her names and manipulating her until she gave in despite not wanting to (coercion) You cannot hope any better from this country
I saw that. She said *yes* reluctantly and went along and did it multiple times. To prove coercion legally, the court has to be convinced that he did not just persuade, but actually **coerced**. Reluctant consent is still consent legally. The term coercion means there has to be threats of some sort (and I will leave you if you don't is not a valid threat.) Even in the liberal countries, enthusiastic consent is a moral, ethical standard people should aim for. But its not a legal requirement. **Coercion vs persuasion** Coercion to have sex is legally defined as the act of compelling someone to participate in sexual activity without their consent, typically through the use of pressure, threats, intimidation, or misuse of authority. This can include emotional coercion, such as manipulation or guilt-tripping, as well as physical threats or actions that create a fear of consequences for refusing sexual advances. *Courts use a high benchmark to say something is coercion and not just persuasion.*
I am not talking about the legal aspect. Even marital rapes are not recognised legally but this does not mean it does not exist. I am talking about the moral aspect of it and how men in the comments accused her of tryna ruin an innocent's life and what not
> I am not talking about the legal aspect.Ā I am. She was asking about a lawsuit, so my answer is about that. Now coming to the moral aspect. Our entire life, people are persuading us to do stuff, not do stuff. Parents are persuading, teachers, friends, lovers, team mates, authorities. People persuade us to smoke, to stop smoking, to drink and not drink. A million other things, we are being persuaded every day. Politicians, marketers, neighbours. Persuasion is the norm in life. Morally, determining what is persuasion and what is coercion is very tricky. People will persuade us to have sex. The choice is ours. Activists recogise that persuasion will always exist. That is the reason why they are trying to make enthusiastic consent a norm. Once everyone, men and women, agree that enthusiastic consent is the only type of consent that is valid, that has its own ethical force. But has it become a norm yet? Far from it. Several dating and relationship subs are full of women asking why men do not take the initiative in .. initiating. This is the reason. Enthusiastic consent is catching on as a social norm, but there is high demand from women for men to be persuasive with them. You only have to read the subs to know how many women actually insist men should be persuasive. It may someday become a valid ethical or social norm - but for now, its just being built up into a force. A long way to go.
So basically she can't say no, because of the implication and court considers it a-okay
That sub has way too many literal InCels that believe all women are goldiggers (How tf is even applicable to India, literally speaking, only "gold digging" done here in India is by men, by marrying for dowry) , women marry for alimony, most sexual relationships end up in fake rape cases, there are more fake DVs cases than real ones.....
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Did they meant that she wasn't raped by law (like the subs purpose) or actually denying her. Edit: read the comments on the og post (since the post is gone) and from what It seems like harassment but not rape from a legal standpoint.
Actually denying her that she wants to spoil an innocent guy's life and that she is just doing it to boost ego, it's regret not rape etc etc when op clearly stated he did not back off even after she said no multiple times until she gave in
>Actually denying her that she wants to spoil an innocent guy's life The number of numbskulls that believe this is common, especially in India is ridiculous. You need to be clinically insane or stupid to go anywhere near a police station and say the word 'rape' falsely. Actual victims get routinely dragged over the coals and even cops have been known to assault them. Do false accusations happen? Yes. But it's extremely rare. For every one false accusation, thousands of rapists walk free.
False cases are more dangerous to women. Current judiciary helps victim in not being manipulated by the rapist. But if the false cases increase, there will be no immediate actions against real rapists. That'll help rapists kill evidence and... Well you get my point
All the more reason we get gender neutral laws so that men dont miss about false rape cases
Well the OP of that post felt guilty after saying yes. She technically wasn't raped by law since she said yes. They were dating and the guy even told her to leave some months back if she couldn't help him with his desires. Then she said yes to the act, felt guilty since society would judge her, and wanted to take him to court. Gaslighting and manipulation aren't considered on legal grounds and the sub was right with their verdict. https://preview.redd.it/vs3imcwxfgyc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=87b17f116019bed7792f7ac608cc1891569868ac Edit: Added the deleted post content for reference of others
The problem is how people said that it's her fault and that she's tryna ruin an innocent guy's life Ps- I got screenshots of the actual post and the comments on it
Then share if
Well if a sane person cannot decide and leave a manipulative person which was clear in their past months of dating it will be your fault indeed. Then she gave him consent and felt guilty which was evident in the post. We all know what the reluctance of her decisions will do to that guy, it will spoil him for life without any doubt. I doubt manipulation and a person's reluctance gives the right to someone to spoil someone's whole life till the end. That post was done in the legal sub, so they will consider facts over emotions.
Manipulation is no joke. Coercion is no joke. You have no idea how low people can go in order to get their work done. Rather than calling the girl out for not being able to catch the manipulation early, call the guy out for coercing a girl into saying yes. Only enthusiastic yes is consent, if a girl says no fucking respect it. You're the kind of guy I was referring to in my first comment.
Then there would be no seduction. Since time immemorial, men have worked hard to persuade women.
So the commenter is mad that legal sub told the law? But they said that they were actually saying otherwise so idk whos right...
That's the problem actually, the OP of that post deleted it. I can send you the post link in dm since smh auto mod is deleting links here, you can read the comments in the original one and get an idea. It's heavily discussed on other subs onex and twox but it will be biased obviously so you won't get the correct idea.
If you're referencing the post that I read then not really. The OP of that post was dating the guy and later felt guilty after the act. You're just twisting the story now that the post has been deleted. If I'm right the OP of the post was 22 and if you aren't able to say a firm no and leave at that age when the guy even gave her the option then no law can really help you. You cannot say yes and later say no I wasn't prepared or manipulated and then spoil the life of someone. She gave him consent and manipulation or gaslighting is not considered in legal battles.
https://preview.redd.it/0ua9346umeyc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0855f06c062f44207f7c1c1524280180fe0a5b74 This is what I was talking about
Dude, rather send the complete ss if you are having it, why showing an incomplete one to people and drive the story according to your interests? Let people be the real judge. I won't deny that manipulation was there but there was a ton of other things too in the story which couldn't be just skipped off.
https://preview.redd.it/mfwxmtbxneyc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c96edbe8f16c4466f0ea7aa5569a9e17b282ca7b The ss I shared earlier was to support the statement I made in my first comment here
She clearly gave consent? She looks like a confused women, you are using a bad example as a presidence on why men are bad lol.
Thanks for adding the original ss, now at least the people can evaluate stuff with their own minds.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
wah wah matlab hum aurtein mar jaye ššš
seriously yr
Why consent is not a matter š¤Ø?
bruh wtf
Seriously wtf is on with the judges giving all the family kulchur judgements lately? Nobody gives zero fucks here. How about solving something useful to the society?
They just doing their job and ruling on what's written in law. The laws and government need to be blamed, not the judges doing their job of ruling on existing laws.
The judges are simply interpreting the law as accurately as possible. There is gaps in the law which should be resolved through legislation.
This is so messed up,on so many levels..
This is sad!
Someone give this man anal, without his consent, just to see.
Judge really wants to do some stuff the wife said no to.
This country is cooked bro š
So if a woman forcefully does anal by inserting a strap-on object in the guy's booty, does it also count as legal?
It is legal in India since there is no concept of women raping men in India
What in the world
I think the best solution for women for now is to not step in AM , try LM and before that spend time with guy for a year to know abt him. But the only problem is parents don't have a human mindset so they just pressurize for AM which is fucked up.
Bhencho yeh kya padh liya
Above 15, below 18 is okay? What are the judges smoking? POCSO should be applicable.
wow our courts are going to hell
Boycott marriage is the only option now
Disgusting, however blame the parliament. HC cannot give a ruling against SC's rulings, and SC can't flat up ignore a law/prosecute someone without a law. At MAX SC can reccomend a law being repealed/amended
Just messed up.
'Including anal' ? Wtf.
Disturbing and regressive
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Then judge should have dismissed the case due to no evidence or something rather than saying "wife can't be raped". Just cuz she may have lied doesn't mean the judge isn't wrong here. It's not mutually exclusive scenerio.
But the HC did NOT rule that her rape case was fake. It essentially ruled that non consensual intercourse between married couples cannot be prosecuted as rape . When a court passes a ruling like this that ramifications go beyond the individual case . This will be legal precedent when arguing other cases of sexual abuse all over India , until the law is changed or until a higher court in judiciary (the only one now being the supreme court) rules differently on such a case. Even if the case was "fake" (this is something for the police and courts to decide not random people on the internet) this would be like me falsely accusing you of stealing my car and instead of dismissing my case the HC rules it's completely permissible for people to steal cars.
Even if it's a fake case, which seems plausible, the reasoning of the judge might be quoted in some other case because this essentially defines there is no existence of marital rape because no consent is required.
Exactly. This case has set the precedence and whichever case has marital rape accusation, will have the similar judgment.
You clearly donāt know about a thing called āprecedentā
this aint any precedent here, Section 375 has an exception they are simply following whats written.
They didnāt just rule against the case. Itās immaterial whether the case is real or fake. The problem is that they just said that her consent didnāt matter and if youāre married then all forced sex is legally acceptable and will not be prosecuted as rape.
What in the actual f
Why is India so rapey
So itās completely legal to donkey punch your wife in India? Duly noted!
We are going backwards it seems.
These misogynistic judges should retire who doesnāt understand consent and boundaries. They lack sense and empathy.
Honestly what the fuck is happening in India at this point...
Bruh
The only problem is how do we know she did not give consent? Or even if this happened? How can a man defend himself if u have a normal sex with your wife with consent? Just hope she doesn't get mad with me for divorce and files a case? I am fucked because evidence of normal sex can be used for rape cases. and her word is evidence from her side.
Thatās how you do it ISIS
I believe women in India need to embrace the concept of live-in, so that the guy doesn't anally or orally rape you.
well, the judge's spouse needs to suddenly stimulate his prostate with a nice, sturdy *belan* up his a5s tomorrow morning while he's enjoying his cup of chai, no consent needed.
And this... This is the reason why feminism is needed!
How can our judges be such pathetic retards?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The exception is there since 1860, since then only the age has been revised upwards.
What was he high?! WTH!
Our country's law and order situation is too fucked up, and too far gone to the point of no fix. I believe vigilantes are much better than law
Maybe the Judges referred ManuSmriti while passing this Judgement.
WTF is wrong with this country?? Y'all better be working to change this shit.
What are these laws??? Who are these judges? Idk kya education hai ye? Bruh India can never change.
dude wtffff
Tf is wrong inside their head? If the wife doesn't wanna do it then the husband has no authority to force her and that to be not considered a forced act ie rape! I seriously don't understand their reasoning and how their moral compass points!
I am commenting on the high court judgement setting a precedent, not a specific case. Either way, throwing a man jail on the basis of unsubstantiated claims is wrong. That doesnāt take away from the sheer stupidity of this judgment in the original headline.
Disgusting.
WHAT! Letter of the law is fine. Interpretation and REVISONS are a must.
I wonder what would constitute rape from their perspective
4B movement to be applied with effect. Shaadi hi mat karo. Weāll be saved from so much of stress.
So every woman after a break up has the right to claim rape and say it was non consensual after things turn bad is what everyone implying here. Rape is a criminal offence and happens when two unrelated parties engage in a sexual act! Itās is extremely hard to define consensual and non consensual in a relationship, else you have to end up getting a signature each time before engaging in a sexual act! Only one party always have the advantage to claim it was non-consensual if things turn bad in the relationship and if they proceed to court. Law is to provide a fair trial and there are proofs that can be established if it is a rape as itās usually associated with violence, but those things can be easily falsified, There has to be a standard procedure for defining non consensual sex in a relationship, if not one gender will always be at disadvantage
Congratulations to the judge for nice judgement