The Gujarat High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually and physically assaulting his estranged wife, saying that marriage cannot be treated as automatic or perpetual consent.
Rejecting the plea, Justice Divyesh A Joshi said that while intimacy is a normal part of marriage, it must always be consensual and respectful. The court observed that modern legal thinking recognises a person’s bodily autonomy even within a marital relationship.
“Marriage has been seen as an automatic grant of sexual consent since decades,” the court said, addding, “However, modern legal frameworks increasingly recognise the bodily freedom of an individual, even within a marital relationship.”
The judge made it clear that forcing a spouse into sexual acts against their will causes not just physical pain but also serious mental and emotional trauma. The court added that women generally do not raise such allegations publicly unless the abuse crosses the limits of their tolerance.
The Gujarat High Ccourt also noted that this was not an isolated allegation. Court records showed that the accused had married the complainant as his second wife and that his first wife had earlier made similar accusations against him. This, the court said, pointed to a pattern of behaviour.
Describing the allegations as “very serious”, the court rejected the argument that the case was a routine matrimonial dispute.
“It is not a simple matrimonial issue,” the order said, adding that the accusations went beyond what is usually seen in marital conflicts. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage of the investigation and that granting anticipatory bail could weaken the probe. It said investigators could lose the opportunity to properly examine evidence and circumstances if the accused was protected from arrest.
The case relates to a complaint filed by the woman in October 2025. She alleged that soon after her marriage in February 2022, she was subjected to mental cruelty, dowry harassment, physical violence and sexual abuse by her husband and his family members.
After a trial court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, the husband approached the Gujarat High Court, which reserved its order in December.
Senior advocate Yatin Oza, appearing for the accused, argued that the complaint was filed with delay and was a response to divorce proceedings initiated by the husband in May 2024. He claimed the allegations were vague, denied any dowry demand and said photographs and travel records showed the couple shared cordial relations.
Opposing the plea, senior advocate Jal Unwalla, representing the complainant, said the allegations were grave and involved repeated sexual and physical abuse over a long period. He argued that the delay in filing the FIR was due to trauma and the social stigma around reporting sexual abuse within marriage.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sonam Joshi also told the court that custodial interrogation was needed to recover electronic evidence, personal belongings and to prevent tampering. Agreeing with the prosecution, the Gujarat High Court refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused, holding that there was prima facie material indicating his involvement in the alleged offences.
