{"id":364253,"date":"2025-10-17T16:00:40","date_gmt":"2025-10-17T10:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=364253"},"modified":"2025-10-22T18:16:06","modified_gmt":"2025-10-22T12:46:06","slug":"husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Allahabad High Court:<\/span> In a criminal appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the convict was held guilty under Sections 363<\/a>, 366<\/a>, and 376<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar-X, J. acknowledged that the judgment in Independent Thought<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2017) 10 SCC 800<\/a> fundamentally changed the legal landscape for sexual intercourse with minors in the context of marriage. Prior to 2017, a man could not be convicted for marital intercourse with a minor wife aged 15-18, as it was exempted under Section 375<\/a> IPC<\/a>. Post-2017, after the Independent Thought ruling, such intercourse with a minor wife is statutory rape, and consent does not matter. However, the law change in 2017 was prospective, so it does not apply retroactively to incidents before the judgment. The Court found that in the present case, as the occurrence took place in 2005, the convict could not be held guilty under the laws as they stood at the time. Since the victim was above 16 years and the marriage was consensual, the Court held that the convict was not guilty of rape under Section 376<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

On 25-09-2005, the informant filed a written complaint stating that his daughter, approximately 16 years old, had gone outside to answer the call of nature when she was enticed away by the convict and two other individuals. In response, an FIR was registered on the same day.<\/p>\n

The victim was recovered and was produced for medical examination. Her statement under Section 164<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) was recorded. Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the convict faced charges under Sections 363<\/a>, 366<\/a>, and 376<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court had considered the testimony of the victim and her mother. The victim testified that she was taken away by the convict, who invited her on a trip. They traveled to Kalpi, where they stayed for a day and performed a Nikah, before proceeding to Bhopal, where they stayed in a rented room for a month. The victim claimed they lived together as a married couple during this period.<\/p>\n

However, the Trial Court observed contradictions in the victim’s testimony, particularly her statement during cross-examination, where she indicated that the Nikah was performed in Kalpi and that she stayed with the convict as his wife in Bhopal. The Trial Court concluded that it could not be conclusively assumed that the victim was enticed or taken away by the convict.<\/p>\n

The court also found the mother’s testimony unreliable. She stated that she had gone to answer the call of nature just two to three hours before the victim, making it impossible for her to have witnessed the incident as claimed.<\/p>\n

Despite these contradictions, the Trial Court considered the victim’s minority at the time of the incident. The consent of the victim was deemed immaterial because of her age, and the Trial Court convicted the convict under Sections 363<\/a>, 366<\/a>, and 376<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court considered two key factors to determine the convict’s culpability under Sections 363<\/a> and 366<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the victim was enticed or taken away by the convict?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the victim was a minor at the time she was allegedly kidnapped?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is defined under Section 361<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, which states that whoever takes or entices any minor (under 16 years for a male or under 18 years for a female) out of the keeping of their lawful guardian without consent, is guilty of kidnapping. The Court noted that “taking” does not necessarily imply the use of force and could mean causing the minor to go with the offender. “Enticing” involves inducing the minor through some form of manipulation or allurement.<\/p>\n

    The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Thakorlal D. Vadgdama<\/span> v. The State of Gujarat<\/span>, (1973) 2 SCC 413<\/a> which distinguished between “takes” and “entices.” The act of “taking” refers to the physical act of causing the minor to go with the offender, while “enticing” involves influencing the minor to act willingly, even if they would not have done so otherwise.<\/p>\n

    The Court also referred to the case of S. Varadarajan<\/span> v. State of Madras<\/span>, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 36<\/a>, where it was emphasised that if the minor willingly joins the offender without any active inducement, the accused would not be guilty of taking the minor away from the lawful guardian.<\/p>\n

    In this case, the Court found that the victim’s actions, which included leaving her home on her own accord, did not amount to either “taking” or “enticing” by the convict. The victim had testified that she left with the convict voluntarily, and the circumstances suggested that the act was premeditated. No evidence was found to suggest that the convict had played an active role in influencing her decision.<\/p>\n

    Since the victim’s actions were voluntary, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence under Section 363 (Kidnapping). Further, the victim’s testimony about her Nikah (marriage) with the convict, which took place at Kalpi and their subsequent life in Bhopal, indicated that their relationship was established after their marriage. Thus, the offence under Section 366 (Kidnapping or inducing to marry) was also not made out.<\/p>\n

    The next issue for consideration was whether the victim’s consent to marry at the age of 16 years was relevant to charges under Section 376 (Rape). Medical evidence showed that the victim was above 16 years, and her marriage was valid under Muslim personal law, which permits marriage upon the attainment of puberty. According to Muslim law, a marriage conducted after puberty is valid, and the victim had entered the marriage voluntarily.<\/p>\n

    However, the Court also examined the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006<\/a>, which defines a “child” as someone who is a female under 18 years of age. While the Act makes child marriages voidable, it did not find the convict guilty of any offences related to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, as the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Muslim law.<\/p>\n

    The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s judgment in Independent Thought<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2017) 10 SCC 800<\/a> which held that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age, even if married, constitutes rape under the IPC<\/a>, overriding any marital consent.<\/p>\n

    The Court found that in the present case, as the occurrence took place in 2005, the convict could not be held guilty under the laws as they stood at the time. Since the victim was above 16 years and the marriage was consensual, the Court held that the convict was not guilty of rape under Section 376<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Based on the above reasoning, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the convict of all charges. The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside. The convict, who had been on bail, had his personal bond cancelled and sureties discharged. He was directed to furnish a new bail bond in accordance with Section 437-A<\/a> CrPC<\/a>, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within two months.<\/p>\n

    [Islam @Paltoo v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 5974<\/a>, decided on 19-09-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    Counsel for Appellant(s):<\/span> Mayank Bhushan<\/p>\n

    Counsel for Respondent(s):<\/span> Govt. Advocate<\/p>\n

    Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “From the foregoing observations as held by Supreme Court in Independent Thought case, it is very much apparent that exception 2 of Section 375 IPC has been struck down on the ground that said provision is inconsistent with the provisions of POCSO Act and is also violative of Article 14, 15 and 21. But it has also been held that the said judgment will have a prospective effect.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":364292,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[91056,15121,2822,91054,91055,13961,21092,23824,23834,68077],"class_list":["post-364253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-2007-conviction","tag-15121","tag-Allahabad_High_Court","tag-husband-conviction","tag-independent-thought-judgment","tag-ipc","tag-marital-rape","tag-minor-wife","tag-sexual-intercourse","tag-statutory-rape"],"yoast_head":"\nHusband Can Only Be Convicted for Sexual Intercourse with Minor Wife Above 15 Years After 2017: Allahabad HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Allahabad High Court overturns a 2007 conviction, ruling that a husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017 SC verdict in Independent Thought\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Allahabad High Court overturns a 2007 conviction, ruling that a husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017 SC verdict in Independent Thought\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-17T10:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-22T12:46:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"headline\":\"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-17T10:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-22T12:46:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1220,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"2007 conviction\",\"2017\",\"Allahabad High Court\",\"Husband conviction\",\"Independent Thought judgment\",\"IPC\",\"marital rape\",\"minor wife\",\"sexual intercourse\",\"Statutory Rape\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Husband Can Only Be Convicted for Sexual Intercourse with Minor Wife Above 15 Years After 2017: Allahabad HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-17T10:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-22T12:46:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Allahabad High Court overturns a 2007 conviction, ruling that a husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017 SC verdict in Independent Thought\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Conviction for sexual intercourse with minor wife\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/17\\\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/scc-editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Husband Can Only Be Convicted for Sexual Intercourse with Minor Wife Above 15 Years After 2017: Allahabad HC | SCC Times","description":"Allahabad High Court overturns a 2007 conviction, ruling that a husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017 SC verdict in Independent Thought","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case","og_description":"Allahabad High Court overturns a 2007 conviction, ruling that a husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017 SC verdict in Independent Thought","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-10-17T10:30:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-22T12:46:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/"},"author":{"name":"Apoorva","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"headline":"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case","datePublished":"2025-10-17T10:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-22T12:46:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/"},"wordCount":1220,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp","keywords":["2007 conviction","2017","Allahabad High Court","Husband conviction","Independent Thought judgment","IPC","marital rape","minor wife","sexual intercourse","Statutory Rape"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/","name":"Husband Can Only Be Convicted for Sexual Intercourse with Minor Wife Above 15 Years After 2017: Allahabad HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp","datePublished":"2025-10-17T10:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-22T12:46:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Allahabad High Court overturns a 2007 conviction, ruling that a husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017 SC verdict in Independent Thought","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Conviction for sexual intercourse with minor wife"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/husband-convicted-sexual-intercourse-minor-wife-2017-allahabad-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Husband can only be convicted for sexual intercourse with minor wife above 15 years after 2017; Allahabad HC sets aside conviction in 20-year-old case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Conviction-for-sexual-intercourse-with-minor-wife.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":289385,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/13\/pocso-act-v-personal-law-application-of-pocso-act-over-muslim-personal-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":364253,"position":0},"title":"POCSO Act v. Personal Law \u2014 Application of POCSO Act over Muslim Personal Law","author":"Editor","date":"April 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Vansh Bhatnagar\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Muslim Personal Law","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1126.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1126.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1126.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1126.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291352,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/05\/school-records-not-free-from-doubt-allahabad-hc-age-determination-of-victim-in-pocso-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":364253,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Victim’s date of birth recorded in school records not free from doubt\u2019; Allahabad High Court acquits POCSO Convict on benefit of doubt","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court said that the admission form has not been filled in by the parents of the victim, but by a stranger, whose credentials are unknown. Thus, the significance of victim's medical age determination will be considered, as per which, she was a major on the date of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208478,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/21\/bom-hc-injury-on-private-part-of-women-married-for-15-years-not-expected-during-forced-intercourse-conviction-of-rape-accused-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":364253,"position":2},"title":"Bom HC | Injury on private part of women married for 15 years not expected during forced intercourse; conviction of rape accused upheld","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0The Bench of V.M. Deshpande, J. upheld the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 376(g), 506 and 34 of IPC. Prosecution Case On 8-12-2004, appellants came to the house of the victim where she resided with her husband and 2\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290976,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/30\/evidence-of-a-sexual-offence-victim-is-entitled-to-great-weight-even-in-absence-of-corroboration-allahabad-high-court-reiterates-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":364253,"position":3},"title":"Evidence of a sexual offence victim is entitled to great weight, even in absence of corroboration; Allahabad High Court reiterates","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Women or girl raped is not an accomplice and to insist on corroboration of the testimony, amounts to insult to womanhood.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":162914,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/11\/sexual-intercourse-wife-18-years-age-rape-sc-holds\/","url_meta":{"origin":364253,"position":4},"title":"Sexual Intercourse with minor wife is rape [Full Report]","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 11, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In order to harmonise Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC of the with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the spirit of other pro-child legislations and the human rights of a married girl child, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216263,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/29\/tri-hc-consent-obtained-for-intercourse-on-false-promise-of-marriage-attracts-s-90-ipc-conviction-for-rape-under-s-376-ipc-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":364253,"position":5},"title":"Tri HC | Consent obtained for intercourse on false promise of marriage attracts S. 90 IPC; conviction for rape under S. 376 IPC upheld","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Tripura High Court:\u00a0Sanjay Karol, CJ, dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC committing rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecution alleged that the appellant made sexual relations with the prosecutrix, who was of unstable mind, on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/364253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=364253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/364253\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/364292"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=364253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=364253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=364253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}