advertisement
(Trigger Warning: Descriptions of rape. Reader discretion advised.)
"If the wife refuses and the husband, nonetheless, has sex with her, howsoever one may disapprove, it can't be equated with the act of ravishing by a stranger."
These are the words of 54-year-old Justice Hari Shankar, who ruled against striking down of the marital rape exception, in the split verdict by the Delhi High Court delivered on 11 May, Wednesday.
I read Justice Shankar's absurd words again, and again – with rage and with sadness.
We can go on and say "wife refuses and the husband, nonetheless has sex", or just recognise it for what it is – marital rape.
"A husband may, on occasion, compel his wife to have sex with him, though she may not be inclined. Can it be said, with even a modicum of propriety, that her experience is the same as that of a woman who is ravaged by a stranger," Justice Hari Shankar asked, in his part of the judgment.
I was recently looking for analogies to explain the concept of consent to my eight-year-old niece. Perhaps, it will be of some use to grownup men as well:
That's what happens when a husband forces himself upon his wife and makes unwarranted decision on her body.
"The expectation of sex of the husband, with his wife is, a legitimate expectation, a healthy sexual relationship being integral to the marital bond. Unjustified denial of sexual access, by either spouse to the other, is not, sanctified or even condoned by law," Justice Shankar further elaborates his point of view.
There is no 'legitimate expectation of sex' in any relationship – just like how there is none between strangers.
Let's fall back to an analogy that I spoke about with my niece.
A wife may have given her consent 499 times before. But if she says "NO" the 500th time, and the husband forces himself upon her, I reiterate:
"Sex between a wife & a husband is sacred. In no subsisting, surviving and healthy marriage should sex be a mere physical act, aimed at gratifying the gross senses. The emotional element of the act of sex, when performed between and wife and husband, is undeniable," writes Justice Shankar.
He added that:
When my husband and I got married, we promised each other love and respect. To me, and to hundreds and thousands of women in India, marriage is a partnership of equals. As it should be.
Does the so-called sacredness mean the woman, the wife, submits to her man – no questions asked?
The marital rape judgment, more than anything, is triggering – as pointed by many on social media. It reflects not only how the judiciary sees marital rape, but also how society sees it.
"The daughter born of such an act would, if the petitioner’s submissions are to be accepted, be a product of rape," writes Justice Hari Shankar, and adds that:
Is that a reason enough to disregard marital rape? Should the man have not thought about the consequences before he forced himself upon his wife? Is such a man even fit to raise a child?
And if a child is a result of rape, then it is what it is.
More importantly, it offers a free commentary on the perceived role of a woman in a family system.
Justice Hari Shankar's lines do nothing to protect the institution of marriage. It robs married women of respect. Above all, it makes survivors of marital rape invisible and normalises what they are going through.
For women, that is a tragedy.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined