Woman wants husband booked for forcing her for oral sex as SC verdict on Section 377 nears

No pension without completing 20 years

The Hush Post: While the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on pleas for decriminalisation of Section 377 of IPC, a woman has moved the apex court seeking fastening of the stringent provision against her husband for forcing her to perform “unnatural” oral sex in their four-year-long married life.

A Bench comprising Justices NV Ramana and M M Shantanagoudar issued notice to the husband after his wife’s counsel Aparna Bhat accused him of forcing the woman to perform oral sex on him and said this was nothing but “sex against the order of nature”, which has been categorised as an offence under Section 377, a report said.

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday had reserved its verdict on petitions seeking decriminalisation of Section 377. Justice DY Chandrachud, who was part of the Bench, had observed during the hearing that oral and anal sex between a consenting husband and wife could not be categories as “unnatural sex” or “sex against the order of nature”, the report said.

But this petition will add to the already complicated issue of decriminalising Section 377. The woman, who married the man in 2014 in Sabarkanta of Gujarat after being engaged to him in 2002 when she was just 15 years old, complained that her doctor husband frequently forced her to indulge in oral sex against her wishes.

Lawyer Aparna Bhat was quoted as saying in the report: “Husband was incapable of comprehending her objection. The husband, aside from his insistence on oral sex, which was unnatural in the perception of the woman, persisted with her to allow video recording of their physical encounters. She was compelled to put up with the depraved demands, which were often accompanied by threats and physical abuse.”

The wife had lodged an FIR accusing her husband of rape and unnatural sex. When her husband moved for quashing of FIR, the Gujarat High Court said that under Section 375 there is no provision for marital rape and also rejected arguments that allegations constituted an offence under Section 377, the report said.

Leave a Reply