A Marriage Beyond Boundaries: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rape FIR in Contentious Spousal Dispute

In a significant ruling regarding the limits of criminal law in matrimonial affairs, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging rape against a man whose marriage had been solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court emphasized that legal marital status provides protection under specific statutory exceptions of the Indian Penal Code.

A Relationship Tested by Time

The petitioner, Gajendra Mourya, and the prosecutrix, identified as 'SK', entered into a court-sanctioned marriage on April 12, 2021, after a one-month notice period under the Special Marriage Act. The union, which faced resistance from family members due to its inter-caste nature, initially appeared to be a product of mutual consent.

However, the relationship soon soured. By June 2021, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR alleging rape, claiming she was forced into marriage and sexually assaulted. Subsequently, both parties approached the Family Court—the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the prosecutrix seeking an annulment. The Family Court rejected both applications in July 2025, a decision currently under appeal.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioner argued that as the lawfully wedded husband, he could not be prosecuted for rape under Section 376 of the IPC , pointing toward Exception 2 of Section 375 , which provides immunity for sexual acts by a man with his own wife (provided she is over 15 years of age). Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra , counsel for the petitioner contended that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the legal process.

Conversely, the prosecution and the complainant argued that the marriage was not consensual and that the prosecutrix had been coerced into signing documents, thereby rendering the protections under the Special Marriage Act void in the context of the alleged crimes.

Court’s Reasoning and Legal Precedents

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case, conducted an in-depth analysis of the definition of 'rape' under Section 375 . The Court noted that following the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013 and the precedent set in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India , the law remains clear regarding marital immunity.

Further, the Court relied on the principles discussed in Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), which affirmed that once a valid marriage is established, charges of rape under Section 376 cannot be sustained against a husband. The Court observed that the subsequent filing of an FIR, months after the marriage and amid ongoing civil litigation in the Family Court, lacked procedural merit.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that while marital discord is a serious matter, criminalizing marital relations through questionable rape complaints is an escalation that the law does not support. Key excerpts from the ruling include:

• "It is clear that if the accused is legally wedded husband of the victim, the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out as he is covered under Exception 2 appended to Section 375 of IPC ."
• "The prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner of her own wish and will, and against the wish and will of her family members."
• "Lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law."
• "Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape."

Implications for Future Litigations

By quashing the FIR, the Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the sanctity of registered marriages and the limitations of sexual offence provisions in a marital context. However, the Court was careful to note that this decision is strictly limited to the quashing of the criminal FIR and does not prejudice the pending civil matters regarding the annulment and restitution of rights. The Family Court remains the appropriate venue to determine the future of the couple's matrimonial ties, independent of the criminal proceedings that have now been set aside.