- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Who Filed Marital Rape As Ground For Divorce Plea To Approach The Delhi High Court
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Petitioner and lawyer Anuja Kapur who had sought a direction to the central government to frame guidelines and laws to consider marital rape as a ground for divorce was asked by the Supreme Court recently to approach the Delhi High Court.Earlier, her petition had sought such a direction to the central government to ensure that there should be a clear guideline to...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Petitioner and lawyer Anuja Kapur who had sought a direction to the central government to frame guidelines and laws to consider marital rape as a ground for divorce was asked by the Supreme Court recently to approach the Delhi High Court.
Earlier, her petition had sought such a direction to the central government to ensure that there should be a clear guideline to register cases related to marital rape, which is rape perpetuated by a husband on his wife.
Her petition had sought a direction to the centre by the Supreme Court, to frame necessary guidelines along with appropriate laws as well as by-laws, in order to consider marital rape as a ground of divorce, contending that there is no law to stop marital rape.
Her petition to the Supreme Court had contended that there ought to be a proper guideline to register cases related to marital rape, so that accountability, responsibility, and liability of the concerned authorities could be assigned while awarding penalties to the accused.
The Supreme Court should pass suitable directions to the Union of India to maintain the dignity of women in marriage, keeping in mind the welfare, well being and interest of the public, her petition had stated.
Her petition claimed that since marital rape has not been recognized as a crime, no First Information Report (FIR) is registered by wives against husbands in any police station.
Due to this, the police tends to effect compromises between survivors of marital rapes and and their rapist husbands, supposedly to maintain the sanctity of the marriage, her petition stated.