 The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by

their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the
husband, which she cannot retract.1
 Marriage according to Hindu Law, is a sacrament and a holy union for the performance of
religious duties. (Swarajya Lakshmi vs. Dr. G.G. Padma Rao AIR 1974 SC 165,)
 The sc reiterated that it is not possible to believe that when a woman has sex with his
husband in the privacy of her bedroom, she would suffer abrasions on her body and vaginal
walls. This shows that forced sex without violence will not be accepted, and more
perplexingly, violent sex in marriage is not possible (State of Rajasthan vs Narayan Kohli
AIR 1992 SC 2003)
 Consummation means full and complete penetration; a partial penetration or an abortive
attempt at intercourse (an incomplete act of coitus) would not constitute consummation.
Amarendra Chowdhury v. Nalini Chowdhury, (1975)77 PLR (D) 100; Indu Kumari Pathak v.
Pathak S.K., (1983) 2 DMC 64(Raj).
 "It may be that law is not always logical, but neither is human behavior. Law is much more
concerned with human behavior than with logic, If human behaviour ceases to be logical,
then the law has to keep pace with human behavior such as it is, and not as it would be in a
logical world,, It is for the legislative to abolish he rentedy of restitution and not for the
courts to- strike down Section 9 of the ground that it is unconstitutional„
 The International Covenants and Declarations as adopted by the United Nations have to be
respected by all signatory States and the meaning given to the above words in those
Declarations and Covenants have to be such as would help in effective implementation of
those rights. The applicability of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
principles thereof may have to be read, if need be, into the domestic jurisprudence. In
Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Ors. 2000CriLJ1473
 It is also well-settled that interpretation of the Constitution of India or statutes would change
from time to time. Being a living organ, it is ongoing and with the passage of time, law must
change. New rights may have to be found out within the constitutional scheme. Horizons of
constitutional law are expanding. In Jagdish Saran and Ors. v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCR
831

1
1 Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown 629 (1778).
 Court considered the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES)
and applied the principles of purposive constructions as also not only the Directive Principles
as contained in Part IV of the Constitution but also Fundamental Duties as contained in Part
IVA (Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India : AIR 2003 SC 3240)
 There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a law which was at one point of time was
constitutional may be rendered unconstitutional because of passage of time. Motor General
Traders and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors (1986) 1 SCR 594, Rattan Arya and
Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (1986) 2 SCR 596 and Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
and Ors. v. State of U.P. And Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1927
 It is a settled canon of administrative jurisprudence that state action, must be supported by
some valid reasons and should be upon due application of mind. In the affidavits filed on
behalf of the state, nothing in this regard could be pointed out and in fact, none was pointed
out during the course of arguments. Absence of reasoning and apparent non-application of
mind would give colour of arbitrariness to the state action. (Sindhu Education Society & Anr.
Vs. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.)