‘Sex with minor partner is rape, consensual sex is not valid’: Bombay High Court – India News

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a partner below 18 years of age, even if consensual, constitutes rape. Citing the Supreme Court precedent in the Independent Thought v. Union of India judgment, Justice GA Sanap upheld the 10-year prison sentence given to a man by a court.

The decision clarified that the marital rape exception under the Indian Penal Code does not apply to minors.

Also Read:Bombay HC imposed penalty of Rs 80 lakh on SEBI, NSE and BSE for freezing of selected demat account; It says don’t act illegally

“Considering the law laid down by the Apical Court, the appellant’s sexual intercourse as the victim’s wife would not constitute rape or penetrative sexual assault and is unacceptable. It should be noted that sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 18, whether married or not, is rape… The defense of consensual sexual intercourse with the wife is not available if the wife or the girl is older. According to Bar and Bench news, Judge Sanap stated that the person alleged to be his wife was under the age of 18.

Case history

The case dates back to 2019, involving a minor who had been in a relationship with the defendant for several years. As their relationship progressed, the girl rented a room in Wardha, where the accused visited regularly to support his family. The court heard the man pressured her into having sexual intercourse with the promise of marriage.

The situation worsened when the girl became pregnant. The accused held a makeshift marriage ceremony in a rented room, which the victim later described as fake. After the ceremony, the man claimed that the woman was pregnant by another man and asked her to have an abortion, denying her claim of paternity.

Also Read:‘He does not suffer from any bad habits’: Bombay High Court rejects petitions against renaming of Aurangabad, Osmanabad

Months later, the girl reported the incident to the police, which led to the man’s arrest and subsequent trial.

Defense arguments rejected

During cross-examination, the victim admitted to authorities that she referred to the defendant as her husband and presented photographs of the two wreathing each other. Based on this, the defense argued that the sexual intercourse was consensual.

The court rejected the claim, stating that the victim’s age at the time of the crime made any consent irrelevant. “Even assuming the so-called marriage between them, it still constitutes rape, considering the victim’s allegations that there was sexual intercourse without her consent.” Judge Sanap said the following.

The ruling strengthens the legal case that marital status or consent cannot override legal protections for minors under the law.