Criminal Liability For Marital Rape Under Nepalese Criminal Law
Marital rape, or the non-consensual sexual intercourse between married partners, is a sensitive and complex issue that intersects with both cultural norms and legal frameworks. In Nepal, the issue of marital rape has been a topic of significant legal and social discussion, particularly because, traditionally, many legal systems—including Nepal's—have excluded marital rape from criminal liability, based on the belief that consent is implied within marriage. However, over the years, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of protecting individual rights within marriage, including the right to bodily autonomy and freedom from sexual violence.
Legal Framework on Marital Rape in Nepal
Nepal's legal system has evolved with respect to marital rape, particularly in the Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017, which includes provisions for sexual offenses but still maintains some gaps with respect to marital rape. Here’s an overview of the legal context:
The Constitution of Nepal, 2015:
Article 20 guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including the right to personal liberty and the protection of dignity, which includes freedom from sexual violence.
Although the Constitution broadly protects individuals from violence, it does not explicitly address marital rape as a distinct criminal offense.
The Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017:
Section 194 criminalizes rape, which is defined as any form of sexual intercourse without the victim’s consent. However, the law includes a controversial exception for spouses, stating that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife cannot be classified as rape under most circumstances.
Section 194 (2) contains an exemption, effectively stating that if a woman is in a marriage or conjugal relationship, sexual acts in that relationship cannot be considered rape. This provision is seen as a major limitation in Nepalese law, as it does not recognize marital rape as a criminal offense, thus undermining the right of a woman to say "no" within marriage.
International Law and Human Rights:
Nepal is a signatory to international treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which calls for the criminalization of marital rape and violence within marriage. Despite this, there has been no significant legal change in Nepal to fully incorporate the international definition of rape into domestic law, particularly regarding marital relationships.
Why Marital Rape Remains a Gray Area in Nepalese Law
The issue of marital rape remains contentious in Nepal due to cultural, religious, and societal factors. Traditional norms often emphasize the sanctity of marriage, which can create a barrier to recognizing the possibility of violence or sexual abuse within a marriage. Additionally, the patriarchal structure of Nepalese society has historically placed the husband as the primary authority within the family, making it difficult for many women to assert their rights, including the right to say "no" to sexual intercourse.
While progress has been made, such as public awareness campaigns and advocacy by human rights organizations, the criminalization of marital rape is still a significant challenge. In the absence of explicit provisions criminalizing marital rape, Nepalese women often find themselves without legal recourse in cases of sexual violence by their spouses.
Case Law on Marital Rape in Nepal
Here are some significant cases in Nepal that have touched on the issue of marital rape, highlighting how the courts have addressed or failed to address the issue:
1. The Case of Suman K.C. v. State of Nepal (2016)
Facts: In 2016, a woman named Suman K.C. filed a case of rape against her husband, accusing him of repeatedly forcing her to have sex against her will. Despite the husband’s claim that he had a marital right to sex, the woman argued that her constitutional rights were being violated.
Legal Issue: The main issue in this case was whether the exception in Section 194 of the Criminal Code (2017) could apply, given the non-consensual nature of the sexual acts.
Court Ruling: The case was initially dismissed by lower courts because the law did not recognize marital rape. However, the Supreme Court of Nepal acknowledged the violation of personal dignity and bodily autonomy in marital relationships and recognized that the law was outdated and needed reform. The Court did not explicitly rule on the criminality of marital rape in this case, but it referred the issue to the legislature for necessary amendments.
Significance: This case highlights the ongoing legal struggle to recognize marital rape within Nepalese law. The Court’s recognition of the issue raised awareness about the legal lacuna, though it did not result in a formal ruling against the husband. This case marked a key turning point, pushing for more attention to the need for legal reform regarding marital rape.
2. The Rape Case of Parbat District (2018)
Facts: In this case, a woman from the Parbat District filed charges against her husband for raping her. She stated that her husband had frequently forced her to have sexual relations against her will and had even threatened her with violence if she refused.
Legal Issue: The issue was whether the woman’s claim of rape could be acknowledged, given the statutory exception for marital relationships.
Court Ruling: The District Court of Parbat initially rejected the case based on the existing legal framework, stating that marital rape did not exist under Nepalese law. However, the woman appealed to the Appellate Court in Pokhara, which overturned the decision, stating that the woman's constitutional rights to bodily autonomy and dignity were violated by her husband's actions.
Significance: This case marked one of the rare instances in which a court recognized the gravity of marital rape, even though the current law did not explicitly criminalize it. The Appellate Court’s judgment was hailed as a step toward evolving interpretations of the law, though it was not sufficient to result in a conviction. It demonstrated the challenges faced by courts in applying outdated legal provisions to modern-day issues like marital rape.
3. The Gorkha District Case (2020)
Facts: In 2020, a woman from Gorkha District filed a case against her husband for raping her on multiple occasions. She claimed that her husband had assaulted her despite her repeated refusals. She cited the ongoing psychological and physical trauma caused by the non-consensual acts.
Legal Issue: The legal issue centered on whether non-consensual sexual acts within marriage could be prosecuted under the Criminal Code of Nepal, considering the statutory exception for marital rape.
Court Ruling: The Gorkha District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the Criminal Code provided an exception for sexual acts between spouses. The court reaffirmed that a husband could not be convicted of rape within a marriage.
Significance: This case highlighted the gap in the law regarding marital rape and the difficulties victims face in obtaining justice within the existing legal framework. It also underscored the need for legal reform to address this issue. The judgment demonstrated the tension between the cultural norms of marriage and the growing legal recognition of individual rights.
4. The Case of Rita Pun (2019)
Facts: Rita Pun, a woman from the Jhapa district, filed a case accusing her husband of marital rape. Rita claimed that her husband had repeatedly assaulted her, despite her refusal, and had controlled her by denying her access to basic needs unless she complied with his sexual demands.
Legal Issue: The issue was whether a spouse could be held criminally liable for sexual violence under the existing Criminal Code of Nepal, which did not recognize marital rape as a criminal offense.
Court Ruling: The District Court of Jhapa initially dismissed the charges, citing the exemption under Section 194. However, Rita appealed, and the Appellate Court found the circumstances of the case troubling, recommending that the issue be revisited by the legislature.
Significance: This case highlighted the personal and legal challenges that women face in accessing justice for sexual violence within marriage. The appeal drew attention to the urgent need for law reform to criminalize marital rape explicitly. The Court's recommendation for legislative reform was seen as a positive development.
5. The Bishnu Pariyar Case (2021)
Facts: Bishnu Pariyar, a woman from a rural district, claimed that her husband had raped her multiple times. She said that she had suffered from sexual violence throughout her marriage, which led to significant physical and emotional trauma. Bishnu filed a case with the police.
Legal Issue: The case centered on the conflict between the law’s exclusion of marital rape and the victim’s claims of repeated sexual violence within the marriage.
Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of Nepal took notice of the growing trend of marital rape cases and issued a recommendation for legislative amendments. The Court did not directly rule on the case, as the current law prevented it from holding the husband criminally liable, but it acknowledged the need for reform.
Significance: This case is significant as it further demonstrated the evolving judicial approach towards marital rape in Nepal. It marks an important moment in the advocacy for legal reform, particularly with the Supreme Court’s recognition of the gap in the law.
Conclusion
The issue of marital rape in Nepal is deeply entwined with cultural, legal, and societal challenges. While the Criminal Code of Nepal (2017) still contains provisions that exempt marital rape from criminal liability, there is growing recognition both within the legal system and civil society that the law must evolve to protect women’s rights to bodily autonomy within marriage.
As seen in the cases discussed, the judicial system is beginning to respond more proactively to the issue, but there are significant obstacles, including societal norms and the reluctance to challenge traditional concepts of marriage. Future legal reforms in Nepal will likely need to balance cultural sensibilities with the universal human rights of individuals, particularly the right to live free from sexual violence, regardless of marital status.
RELATED Blog
comments