Consensual sex with minor wife is rape: High Court upholds 10-year jail for man

The Bombay High Court upheld a 10-year sentence for a man accused of raping his minor wife, ruling that consensual sex with a minor, even in marriage, constitutes rape under the law.

In Short

• 10-year sentence for man upheld by Bombay High Court
• Accused coerced survivor into relationship, causing pregnancy
• Nagpur Bench rules sex with wife below 18 is rape

The Bombay High Court has ruled that consensual sex with a minor wife constitutes rape, and the legal defence for such an act cannot be accepted under the law. The Nagpur Bench of the High Court made this observation while upholding a 10-year sentence for a man against whom his wife had lodged a rape complaint.

Specifying that the age of consent is above 18-years-old, a bench of justice GA Sanap said, "It needs to be stated that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape, regardless of whether she is married or not”.

The High Court stressed, “The defence of consensual sex with the wife is not available when the age of the wife or the girl, who is alleged to be the wife, is below 18 years of age”.

The bench upheld the conviction and 10-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the accused, as handed down by a lower court.

According to the case details, the man engaged in forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant, which resulted in pregnancy. He later married her. However, their marital relationship deteriorated, prompting the woman to file a complaint against him.

“Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was a so-called marriage between them, in view of the allegations made by the victim that it was sexual intercourse against her consent, it would constitute rape,” the High Court said.

The accused was a neighbour of the survivor, when she was residing in Maharashtra’s Wardha, where she lived with her father, sisters, and grandmother.

The accused and the survivor had been in a romantic relationship for 3-4 years before the 2019 complaint. However, the survivor had consistently rejected the accused's advances for physical intimacy.

Due to their family's financial constraints, the survivor moved to a nearby town for work. The accused followed her, offering rides to and from her workplace, and eventually coerced her into a sexual relationship, resulting in her pregnancy.

Initially, the accused promised to marry the survivor and staged a "farce marriage" ceremony in a rented room with the presence of some neighbours, according to the allegations. However, his behaviour towards her turned abusive, involving physical assaults and pressure to undergo an abortion. He later denied paternity, accusing her of having a child with another man.

Unable to endure the abuse, the survivor filed a police complaint in May 2019, leading to the accused's arrest.

In his defence, the accused claimed that the sexual relationship was consensual and that the survivor was his wife.

However, Justice Sanap observed, "In my view, this submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In this case, the prosecution has proved that the victim on the date of commission of the crime was below 18 years of age".

The bench observed that the DNA report confirmed the accused and the victim as the biological parents of the male child born from the relationship.