Delhi High Court today delivered a split verdict on the issue of criminalisation of marital rape
- A married woman’s right to bring the offending husband to justice needs to be recognised: Justice Rajiv Shakdher.
- Deifying women has no meaning if they are not empowered. They are our equal half; some would delightfully say our better half: Justice Rajiv Shakdher.
- It would be tragic if a married woman’s call for justice is not heard even after 162 years, since the enactment of IPC: Justice Rajiv Shakdher.
- To my mind, self-assured and good men have nothing to fear if this change is sustained. If I were to hazard a guess, those amongst us who want the status quo to continue would perhaps want to have the MRE struck down if the victim involved was his/her mother, sister, or daughter: Justice Rajiv Shakdher.
- (Exception) advises against unwarranted judicial, or executive, incursions into the privacy of the marital bedroom and, in doing so, cannot, in my view, be regarded as sanctioning an unconstitutional dispensation: Justice Hari Shankar.
- The Exception does not say that husbands would be exempted, or excepted, from being prosecuted for rape; it says, rather, that, sexual acts between a husband and wife are not rape. The offence of rape, therefore, does not exist, where the man and woman are married: Justice Hari Shankar.
- It is impossible for this Court to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners, as it would result in the creation of an offence, which is completely proscribed in law: Justice Hari Shankar.
Waiting for response to load…
(This story has not been created/edited by Unicaus and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)