Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Marital Rape and the Indian Legal System: Equality and Marriage, Assignments of Criminal Law

National law UniversityCriminal Law

A moot court memorial arguing against the criminalization of marital rape in india. It presents arguments based on the indian constitution, particularly article 14 (right to equality), and the sanctity of marriage. The memorial analyzes relevant case law and legal principles to support the respondent's position.

Typology: Assignments

2024/2025

Uploaded on 09/26/2024

drip-roshan
drip-roshan 🇮🇳

3 documents

1 / 37

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
TEAM CODE: TC-71R
8th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950)
IN THE MATTER OF
SOCIETY FOR WOMEN’S RIGHT’S............................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA...........................................................................................RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25

Partial preview of the text

Download Marital Rape and the Indian Legal System: Equality and Marriage and more Assignments Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!

TEAM CODE: TC-71R

8 th^ RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950)

IN THE MATTER OF

SOCIETY FOR WOMEN’S RIGHT’S ............................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA ...........................................................................................RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 11

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12

5. ISSUES RAISED 13

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 14

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: THAT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT THE

WIFE’S CONSENT IS RAPE U/S 375 OF IPC OR NOT AND

WHETHER IT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE II: THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES 22

UNDER WHICH THE WOMEN CAN COMPLAIN AND GET

REMEDIES

2 | P a g e

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

**1. ¶ Paragraph

  1. § Section
  2. & And
  3. AIR All India Reporter
  4. Art. Article
  5. Anr. Another
  6. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
  7. HC High Court
  8. Hon’ble Honourable
  9. IPC Indian Penal Code
  10. NGO Non-Governmental Organization
  11. Ors. Others
  12. SC Supreme Court
  13. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
  14. U.O.I Union Of India
  15. U.S United States
  16. v. Versus
  17. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal INDEX OF AUTHORITIES** 4 | P a g e

2. Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application (DV)

  1. Parveen Mehta Versus Inderjit Mehta reported in 2002 (2) H.L.R. 513 (SC) (India).
  1. Parveen Mehta Versus Inderjit Mehta reported in 2002 (2) H.L.R. 513 (SC) (India).
    1. XB S Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) Cr LJ 2028 (SC) (India).;...........................
    • No.5672 of 2016. (Gujarat HC). (India)...................................................................
    1. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 S.C.C. 250 (India).......................
    1. Deepak Bajaj v. State, (2008) 16 S.C.C. 14; (India).................................................
    1. Harvender Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhary, A.I.R. 1984 Del. 66. (India).......
    1. K Prema S Rao v. YadlaSrinivasa Rao (2003) 1 S.C.C. 217 (India)........................
    1. K.B. Nagur, MD (Ayurveda) v. UOI, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1774. (India)......................
    1. K.K.Baskaran v. State of T.N, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1485 (India).;................................
    1. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2573 (India).....
    1. Mr.X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 296. (India).....................................................
    1. Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 1220 (India)...................
    1. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 (India)..................
    1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 264 (India).........................
    1. Rita Nijhawan vs. Balkishan Nijhawan A.I.R. 1973 Delhi 200 (India)....................
    1. Rita V. Balkrishan Nijhawan, A.I.R. 1973 Del 200 (India)......................................
    1. Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 S.C.C. 511 (India)........................................
    1. Samayne’s, (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a.............................................................................
    1. Shankuntla Kumari vs. Om Prakash Ghai (AIR 1983 Delhi 53) (India)..................
    1. Sheldon Versus Sheldon {(1966) 2 All England Reported 257}..............................
    1. Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. (1981)
    • S.C.C. 250 (India).....................................................................................................
    1. State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357. (India).....................
    1. State of M.P. v. RakeshKohli, A.I.R. 2012 S.C 2351 (India).;..................................
    • (India)....................................................................................................................... 24. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Government Trust, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 587.
    1. State of W.B v. Kesoram Industries, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 1646 (India).........................
    1. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, C.B.I , A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2140 (India).................
    1. Susarla Subrahmanya Sastry vs. Padmakshi II (2005) D.M.C. 707 (DB) (India)...
    1. XB S Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) Cr LJ 2028 (SC) (India).;...........................
    • No.5672 of 2016. (Gujarat HC). (India)................................................................... 29. Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application (DV)
    1. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 S.C.C. 250 (India).......................
    1. Deepak Bajaj v. State, (2008) 16 S.C.C. 14; (India).................................................
    1. Harvender Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhary, A.I.R. 1984 Del. 66. (India).......
    1. K Prema S Rao v. YadlaSrinivasa Rao (2003) 1 S.C.C. 217 (India)........................
    1. K.B. Nagur, MD (Ayurveda) v. UOI, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1774. (India)......................
    1. K.K.Baskaran v. State of T.N, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1485 (India).;................................
    1. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2573 (India).....
    1. Mr.X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 296. (India).....................................................
    1. Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 1220 (India)...................
    1. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 (India)..................
    1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 264 (India).........................
    1. Rita Nijhawan vs. Balkishan Nijhawan A.I.R. 1973 Delhi 200 (India)....................
    1. Rita V. Balkrishan Nijhawan, A.I.R. 1973 Del 200 (India)......................................
    1. Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 S.C.C. 511 (India)........................................
    1. Samayne’s, (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a.............................................................................
    1. Shankuntla Kumari vs. Om Prakash Ghai (AIR 1983 Delhi 53) (India)..................
    1. Sheldon Versus Sheldon {(1966) 2 All England Reported 257}..............................
    1. Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. (1981)
    • S.C.C. 250 (India).....................................................................................................
    1. State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357. (India).....................
    1. State of M.P. v. RakeshKohli, A.I.R. 2012 S.C 2351 (India).;..................................
    • (India)....................................................................................................................... 51. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Government Trust, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 587.
    1. State of W.B v. Kesoram Industries, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 1646 (India).........................
    1. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, C.B.I , A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2140 (India).................
    1. Susarla Subrahmanya Sastry vs. Padmakshi II (2005) D.M.C. 707 (DB) (India)...
    1. XB S Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) Cr LJ 2028 (SC) (India).;...........................
    • No.5672 of 2016. (Gujarat HC). (India)................................................................... 56. Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application (DV)
    1. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 S.C.C. 250 (India).......................
    1. Deepak Bajaj v. State, (2008) 16 S.C.C. 14; (India).................................................
    1. Harvender Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhary, A.I.R. 1984 Del. 66. (India).......
    1. K Prema S Rao v. YadlaSrinivasa Rao (2003) 1 S.C.C. 217 (India)........................
    1. K.B. Nagur, MD (Ayurveda) v. UOI, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1774. (India)......................
    1. K.K.Baskaran v. State of T.N, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1485 (India).;................................
    1. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2573 (India).....
    1. Mr.X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 296. (India).....................................................
    1. Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 1220 (India)...................
    1. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 (India)..................
    1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 264 (India).........................
    1. Rita Nijhawan vs. Balkishan Nijhawan A.I.R. 1973 Delhi 200 (India)....................
    1. Rita V. Balkrishan Nijhawan, A.I.R. 1973 Del 200 (India)......................................
    1. Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 S.C.C. 511 (India)........................................
    1. Samayne’s, (1604) 5 Co Rep 91a.............................................................................
    1. Shankuntla Kumari vs. Om Prakash Ghai (AIR 1983 Delhi 53) (India)..................
    1. Sheldon Versus Sheldon {(1966) 2 All England Reported 257}..............................
    1. Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. (1981)
    • S.C.C. 250 (India).....................................................................................................
    1. State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357. (India).....................
    1. State of M.P. v. RakeshKohli, A.I.R. 2012 S.C 2351 (India).;..................................
    • (India)....................................................................................................................... 78. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Government Trust, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 587.
    1. State of W.B v. Kesoram Industries, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 1646 (India).........................
    1. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, C.B.I , A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2140 (India).................
    1. Susarla Subrahmanya Sastry vs. Padmakshi II (2005) D.M.C. 707 (DB) (India)...

LITERATURE REFERRED:

 COMMENTARIES ON INDIAN PENAL CODE:

  1. RATANLAL &DHIRAJLAL’S LAW OF CRIMES – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol. I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th End. 2013.
  2. RATANLAL &DHIRAJLAL'S LAW OF CRIMES – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol. II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
  3. JUSTICE V. V. RAGHVAN, LAW OF CRIMES, India Law House, New Delhi, 5th Edn. 2001.
  4. K I VIBHUTI, P.S.A PILLIA'S CRIMINAL LAW, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edn. 2014.
  5. DR. (Sir) HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th Edn. 2014.
  6. J C SMITH, SMITH AND HOGAN CRIMINAL LAW – Cases and Materials, LexisNexis Butterworth’s, 8th Edn. 2002.
  7. BASU'S INDIAN PENAL CODE (Law of Crimes), Vol. I., Asoka Law House, 11th Edn. 2011.
  8. S.K. SARVARIA, R.A. NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE (9th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Gurgaon 2002).
  9. M.P. TANDON, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (23th ed. Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad 2005).
  10. RAM JETHMALANI & D.S. CHOPRA, 2 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (1st ed. Thomson Reuters, Legal, New Delhi 2014).  COMMENTARIES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
  11. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur 2010).
  12. DURGA DAS BASU, 1 COMMENTARY ON CONSTITION OF INDIA (8th ed. Wadhwa and Company Nagpur 2007).
  13. DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Universal Law Publishing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 2008). 8 | P a g e

OTHER SOURCES

  1. Constitutional Assembly Debates: Official Reports Vol.VII: Nov. 4, 1948
  2. Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 15th Edn. 2009
  3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, "Adultery"
  4. K.I. Vibhute, 'Rape' and the Indian Penal Code at the Crossroads of the New Millennium: Between Patriarchist and Gender Neutralist Approach", Journal of the Indian Law Institute (January-March 2001, In Press)
  5. Yogyakarta Principles
  6. International Conventions STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 10 | P a g e

The petitioners had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32^1 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and the respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Nidhi and Subodh, aged 22 and 24 respectively, have been live-in partners since 2017 and love each other. 1 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ) (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution 11 | P a g e

ISSUES RAISED

…………………………………….……. ISSUE 1……….……….………………………….

THAT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT THE WIFE’S CONSENT IS RAPE U/S

375 OF IPC OR NOT AND WHETHER IT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

…………………………………….……. ISSUE 2……….……….………………………….

THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES UNDER WHICH THE

WOMEN CAN COMPLAIN AND GET REMEDIES

…………………………………….……. ISSUE 3……….……….………………………….

THAT THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF A WIFE UNDER ART.21 IS NOT ABSOLUTE

AND IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE MATRIMONIAL

PRIVACY

…………………………………….……. ISSUE 4……….……….………………………….

THAT THE DENIAL OF SEX TO HUSBAND LEADS TO CRUELTY

13 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT THE WIFE’S CONSENT IS RAPE

U/S 375 OF IPC OR NOT AND WHETHER IT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, OF

THE CONSTITUTION?

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that sexual intercourse without wife’s consent is not rape. Section 375 IPC nowhere specifies or demonstrates the term ‘sexual intercourse without wife’s consent.’  Thus, it is humbly submitted in the light of these judgments that identical treatment cannot be given to a married and unmarried woman. Moreover, if forceful intercourse will be termed as rape it will arbitrarily be against the men being violative of Art. 15 of the constitution. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that Section 375 of IPC draws a reasonable classification between married and the unmarried women. Thus, it is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES UNDER WHICH THE WOMEN CAN COMPLAIN AND GET REMEDIES  It is most humbly submitted before this honourable court that by declaring this very exemption clause as being violative of fundamental and human rights is not the sole option to be relied upon. Article 15(3) of the constitution of India states that “Nothing in this article shall prevent state from making any special provision for women and children.”  It is pertinent to note that there are various constraints due to which the exemption clause is not being criminalised and also there are various other alternative remedies available under which aggrieved women can seek protection. 14 | P a g e

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. WHETHER SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT THE WIFE’S CONSENT IS

RAPE U/S 375 OF IPC OR NOT AND WHETHER IT IS VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE 14, OF THE CONSTITUTION?

1.1 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that sexual intercourse without wife’s consent is not rape. Section 375 IPC nowhere specifies or demonstrates the term ‘sexual intercourse without wife’s consent.’ 1.2 Therefore, rape u/s 375 is constituted only if the act falls under the seven exceptions of the offence. Firstly, against her will; Secondly, without her consent; Thirdly, when her consent is obtained by putting fear of death in her; Fourthly, when the consent is given under the belief that another man is her lawfully married husband; Fifthly, when consent given by the reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication etc.; Sixthly, with or without her consent, when she is under 16 years of age and Seventhly, when she is unable to convey her consent. 1.3 Moreover, while convicting a person u/s 375 of the IPC the two essential ingredients of Section 375 should be fulfilled as was observed by the court in the case of Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan,^3 that there are two essential ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC. Firstly, sexual intercourse by a man with a woman and secondly, the sexual intercourse must be under circumstances falling under any of the six clauses in this section. 1.4 THAT IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1.4.1 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Article 14 provides the right to equality and equal protections of the laws to every person within the territory of India. Article 14 is considered to be a part of the Golden triangle of the Constitution of India and is a fundamental right that stands above the rest.^4 3 Suo Moto v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (4) INDIA.L.C. 163 (India). 4 Ashok Kumar Thakur v. U.O.I, (2008) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India). 16 | P a g e

1.4.2 Therefore, no person within the territory of India can be denied the “right to equality” and the enjoyment of “equal protection of laws.” The point to be noted is that the principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all^5 who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances, in the same position as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. 1.4.3 Our Constitution is wedded to the concept of Equality which is the basic feature of the Constitution and is a fundamental postulate of Republicanism.^6 Equality clause embodied in Article 14, does not speak of mere formal Equality before the law but is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within the traditional and doctrinaire limits Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 must be read together.^7 1.4.4 It has been observed by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee,^8 that Article 14 is the heart and soul of the constitution. Article 14 guarantees to all persons in our country equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, which only means that all persons are equally and have a right to equal protection.^9 1.4.5 Moreover, the wording used in Article 14 suggests that right to equal protection of law is absolute. But, in reality, it is not so. It is now well established by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is subject to reasonable classification.^10 1.4.6 It was observed by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Anita Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sudan^11 that, “Equal protection of laws is not limited in its application to the realm of executive action that enforces the law-it is as much available in relation to the proceedings before courts and tribunal and adjudicatory or where law is applied and 5 Kedarnath v. State of INDIA.B, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404 (406) (India). 6 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299 (India). 7 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 (India). 8 Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, (2008) 2 S.C.C. 672 (India). 9 Narain Das v. Improvement Trust (1973) 2 S.C.C. 265 (India). 10 E P Royappav v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555 (India). 11 Anita Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sudan, (2016) 8 S.C.C. 509 (India). 17 | P a g e

1.4.10 What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act under consideration.^20 It is pertinent to note in the case at hand that the classification India to maintain the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Therefore, the classification drawn by 375 is reasonable in nature because the classification is real and substantial and bears some just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation.^21 It is humbly submitted that the classification between married and unmarried women is reasonable in nature as there is an intelligible differentia between the classifications based on procurement of the evidence. 1.4.11 ‘Equal protection of law’ does not mean that the same law should be made applicable to all persons or that every law must have universal application irrespective of difference of circumstances.^22 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Article 14 does not operate against rational classification.^23 Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not reason to attract the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution.^24 It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a reasonable classification is inherent in the very concept of equality, because all the persons living on this earth are not alike and have different problems.^25 [¶ 1]. Moreover, it would become impossible to find the evidence to make out the offence of rape. The point to be considered is that any sexual act done by a husband with her wife is done behind the closed doors. Moreover, it was observed by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chand Pandey,^26 that cohabitation by husband and wife is an essential feature of valid marriage. [¶ 2]. In Rita das Biswas v. Trilokesh Das Biswas,^27 it was held that co-habitation is an essential ingredient for a valid marriage. The point to be taken into consideration is 20 Tulsipur Sugar Co. v. Govt of U.P, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 443 (India). 21 Ameeronisa v. Mahboob (1953) S.C.R 404 (India). 22 Jagannath Prasad v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1245 (India). 23 Western U.P. Electric Power v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 21 (India). 24 Jaila Singh v.State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1436 (India). 25 Pathumma v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 771 (India). 26 Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chand Pandey, (2002) 2 S.C.C. 73 (India). 27 Rita Das Biswas v. Trilokesh Das Biswas, A.I.R. 2007 Gau. 122 (India). 19 | P a g e

that procuring any evidence except the testimony of the prosecutrix, will become impossible. The Hon’ble SC has observed in plethora of cases that the statement of the prosecutrix holds a very high evidentiary value and is sufficient to convict a person. As was observed by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Uday v. State of Karnataka,^28 that the medical evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation should not be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. [¶ 3]. Moreover, it was observed by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Garg v. U.O.I.,^29 that the reasonableness is to be judged with reference to the object of the legislation and not moral considerations. [¶ 4]. In all cases where the material adduced before the court in matters relating to Art. 14 is unsatisfactory, the court may have to allow the state to lean on the doctrine of initial presumption of constitutionality.^30 There is always a presumption in favour of the Constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon the person, who attacks it, to show that there has been a clear transgression of the Constitutional principles.^31 It must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, that, its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that, its discrimination are based on adequate grounds.^32 [¶ 5]. The Courts always lean against a construction, which reduces the Statute to a futility. A Statute or any enacting provision therein, it is said, must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim “ ut res magisvaleat quam pereat.”^33 Thus, it is humbly submitted that the legislature after taking into consideration the needs and ethos of the society has inserted the Exception in the impugned Section. It is further humbly submitted that criminalizing such a private affair between a married couple will go against the interests of the society at large. [¶ 6]. It is always observed that there is a presumption in the constitutionality of an enactment, since it is assumed that the legislature understands and correctly 28 Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 46 (India). 29 Garg v. U.O.I., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2138 (India). 30 Ratnaporva Devi v. State of Orissa (1964) 6 S.C.R 301 (India). 31 Subramanian Swamy v. Director, C.B.I., A.I.R. 2014 S.C. 2140 (India). 32 The Rule was enunciated by the American Supreme Court in Middleton v. Texas Power & L. Company, ( U.S. 152) quoted in Government of A.P. v. P.L. Devi, A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 1640 (India). 33 Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 361 (India). 20 | P a g e