Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Husband Accused Of Sexually Abusing Wife, Highlights Unchecked Dominance & Entitlement In Marriage

Denying anticipatory bail to a husband accused of sexually abusing his wife, the Delhi High Court has said that specific incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse recounted in the case “unveil a troubling reality” that “marriage is distorted into a vessel for unchecked dominance and entitlement.”

“Embedded within this warped perception is a dangerous belief that the marital bond grants unchecked authority to the husband, transforming his wife into a mere object to be wielded at will. The portrayal of the victim as a commodity reflects a deeply entrenched societal mindset that views women as objects to be controlled, exploited, and disposed of at will,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

It added, “Being labeled and continuously called and reminded repeatedly that she had a status of a mere as a cow meant only for milking or a golden hen expected to lay golden eggs is deeply disturbing and indicative of the dehumanizing treatment the victim endured, which highlights the systemic issue of objectification and exploitation of women within certain societal frameworks.”

The court observed that such accused persons should be dealt with a stern hand, adding that custodial interrogation of the husband in the case may be required for recovering inappropriate photographs, conversations, audios or videos as alleged by the wife.

The FIR was registered by the wife under Section 498A, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was her case that the husband used to forcibly have sexual intercourse with her and beat her, which resulted in injuries.

Rejecting the husband's anticipatory bail plea, Justice Sharma said that the wife categorically and specifically stated that due to the sexual atrocities committed upon her by him, who repeatedly asserted his entitlement as her husband to do as he pleased with her body, she was coerced into satisfying his physical desires against her will.

“The specific allegations include accused/applicant taking inappropriate photographs of the victim, who was his wife, and therefore, an easy prey for taking her inappropriate photographs and making her videos which were sexually explicit taking advantage of their relationship and the mindset that a woman has to give in to any kind of sexual satisfaction of her husband or be labeled as a bad wife,” the court said.

It added that a pattern of abuse and exploitation perpetrated by the husband against his wife demonstrated a “blatant disregard for her well-being and autonomy.”

“It is shocking that as a married earning woman, even to pay fee to the doctor and to buy medicines, she had to ask the accused/husband who told her that her father had not given enough money to take her to a doctor or to buy medicines for her. The mindset and the behavior is clearly brought out by the allegations that the accused did not even take her to the doctor though she had contracted sexually transmitted disease from him and her family had to take her to the hospital and doctor,” the court said.

Furthermore, it said that in many cases, the fact that a woman does not work becomes the source of her handicap of raising voice against atrocities for fear of being stigmatized or faced with a dilemma as to where she would go if she is thrown out of her matrimonial home, when where the doors of her parental home may also not be easily accessible or welcoming to her.

“However, now there is no dearth of cases placed before this Court highlighting another disturbing trend where the factum of a woman earning and employed becomes her handicap too, on the premise that since being a woman, she is earning and independent, she is not herself inclined to live with the husband and the in-laws, conveniently trying to put under wraps the reason for her to raise her voice against physical, mental, sexual and economic abuse by the husband,” the court said.

It added: “Considering the same, the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant, and also the very fact that the thought process and thinking of the applicant/accused herein, as a husband, he was entitled by virtue of his marriage with the complainant, to sexually, physically, and economically abuse her to the extent as mentioned in the complaint, goes against the very intent of the law of this country.”

Title: NITIN KUMAR TOMAR v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 144