The High Court of Gujarat has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a husband accused of serious matrimonial cruelty, including unnatural sex and inflicting physical injuries. The Court observed that while intimacy is normal between married couples, it must be a “consensual and mutually respectful act,” and allegations of unnatural sex against a spouse’s will cause immense physical and emotional trauma.
Case Background
The ruling was delivered by Justice Divyesh A. Joshi in an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11191011250327 of 2025, registered with the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City.
The FIR alleges that the applicant (husband), along with his parents, deceived the complainant into marriage with false assurances. Post-marriage, the accused allegedly demanded dowry and subjected the complainant to physical abuse and unreasonable demands. The complainant alleged that she was physically and mentally harassed and eventually thrown out of her matrimonial home on April 20, 2025. The allegations include charges of physical assault, mental torture, and sexual abuse.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza, appearing for the applicant, argued that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was unnecessary. He submitted that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and that the FIR was lodged with a gross delay of almost one and a half years to settle personal scores.
Mr. Oza contended that the applicant, a “business tycoon and multi-millionaire,” had not demanded dowry as he had borne all expenses, including foreign trips. He argued that the complainant was aware of the applicant’s first marriage and three children. He claimed the FIR was a counterblast to a divorce petition filed by the applicant in Gurugram on May 30, 2024. Regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct by the father-in-law, the counsel submitted photographs showing the family celebrating a festival during the period of the alleged incident to refute the claims.
Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwalla, appearing for the original complainant, vehemently opposed the bail plea. He described the allegations as “shameful” and serious, involving “systematic physical violence, mental cruelty, sexual abuse, dowry harassment, death threats, criminal intimidation and attempted rape.”
Mr. Unwalla submitted that the applicant had “attempted to burn the complainant with lit cigarettes on her private part and chest.” He argued that the applicant possessed intimate photographs of the complainant on a hard disk that is yet to be recovered, raising fears that he might circulate them. It was also submitted that the applicant is a repeat offender, with similar allegations having been made by his first wife.
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Soham Joshi supported the complainant, stating that a report under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act confirmed the genuineness of the correspondence between the parties. He noted that the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS contained very serious allegations.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, after perusing the record, noted that the case appeared to be “something beyond the general and usual allegations stated to be being made in every matrimonial disputes.” The Court observed that the FIR contained grave allegations, including “giving burn on the private part of the complainant with the lit cigarettes” and “having unnatural sex by the applicant with the complainant against her will and wish.”
Addressing the issue of marital intimacy, the Court observed:
“No doubt, marriage has been seen as an automatic grant of sexual consent since decades, however, the modern legal frameworks increasingly recognize the bodily freedom of an individual, even within a marital relationship. Intimacy is normal between every married couples, however, the same has to be a consensual and mutually respectful act. Having an unnatural sex by any spouse against the will and wish of other partner not only causes immense physical pain but it also gives mental, and emotional trauma to the unconsented spouse.”
The Court further remarked on the hesitation of victims to report such crimes:
“We do understand that no women in our civilised and cultured society would come forward and confront such sensitive issues in public until the level of such harassment and abuse goes beyond her tolerance.”
The Court also took note of the abusive language used by the applicant in WhatsApp chats and the fact that the applicant’s first wife had leveled similar allegations.
Citing Supreme Court judgments in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sushila Aggarwal, and Pratibha Manchanda, the High Court held that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was “very much necessary” to uncover the truth and for the recovery of material evidence.
The Court concluded:
“The impugned order passed by the trial court, rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant is just and proper and does not require any interference at the end of this Court.”
The application was rejected, and the rule was discharged.
