The acquittal of the 40-year-old husband, who initially faced charges related to the brutal assault and subsequent death of his wife in December 2017, has reignited debates around the legal definition of consent within marriage in India's patriarchal society. The lower court's conviction was largely supported by the victim's dying declaration and medical evidence of severe injuries from the assault. However, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, in his ruling, questioned the credibility of the dying statement and pointed to a lack of legal framework addressing marital rape.
The court's decision has led to outrage from women's rights advocates, who assert that the ruling sends a dangerous message about the rights of husbands over their wives. Lawyer Priyanka Shukla criticized the ruling for suggesting that marriage grants men immunity from accountability for acts of violence. Women's rights activists note that India remains one of over thirty countries where marital rape is not legally recognized, contrasting sharply with other nations such as the UK, which banned it in 1991.
Despite numerous petitions calling for reform, resistance remains strong from various sectors of Indian society, including government and religious leaders, who argue that criminalizing marital rape threatens the institution of marriage. Activists emphasize the need for legal change to protect women's rights and bodily autonomy, arguing that the existing legal provisions are inadequate.
In light of the verdict, calls for a nationwide campaign to criminalize marital rape are growing, emphasizing that rights guaranteed under the constitution include the safety and well-being of women. With alarming statistics revealing that a significant percentage of married women experience violence, advocates argue that the time for legal reform is now. They stress that protecting women's rights is not an issue of gender conflict, but one of fundamental human rights and safety.
The court's decision has led to outrage from women's rights advocates, who assert that the ruling sends a dangerous message about the rights of husbands over their wives. Lawyer Priyanka Shukla criticized the ruling for suggesting that marriage grants men immunity from accountability for acts of violence. Women's rights activists note that India remains one of over thirty countries where marital rape is not legally recognized, contrasting sharply with other nations such as the UK, which banned it in 1991.
Despite numerous petitions calling for reform, resistance remains strong from various sectors of Indian society, including government and religious leaders, who argue that criminalizing marital rape threatens the institution of marriage. Activists emphasize the need for legal change to protect women's rights and bodily autonomy, arguing that the existing legal provisions are inadequate.
In light of the verdict, calls for a nationwide campaign to criminalize marital rape are growing, emphasizing that rights guaranteed under the constitution include the safety and well-being of women. With alarming statistics revealing that a significant percentage of married women experience violence, advocates argue that the time for legal reform is now. They stress that protecting women's rights is not an issue of gender conflict, but one of fundamental human rights and safety.
