Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{188261,
        author = {Aryan lal and Arminder kaur},
        title = {The Irrevocable Retraction of Consent: Marital Rape, A Legal Fiction Overruled in Comparative and Constitutional Jurisprudence]”},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2025},
        volume = {12},
        number = {7},
        pages = {1455-1462},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=188261},
        abstract = {This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the historical, legal, and constitutional roots of the marital rape exemption (MRE) and argues that it must be abolished worldwide. By tracing the exemption back to Sir Matthew Hale’s seventeenth-century notion of irrevocable marital consenst and the common law doctrine of Coverture, the paper illustrates that the MRE lacked genuine legal foundation and instead reflected patriarchal beliefs that stripped married women of sexual autonomy. Through a comparative review of Western reforms including the role of second-wave feminist advocacy, gradual statutory change in the United States, and the decisive judicial rejection of the exemption in the United Kingdom’s R v R (1991) the article shows that strong judicial action is often more effective than fragmented legislative reforms in overturning deeply entrenched legal myths. Despite these advances, many countries still retain express or de facto exemptions, contravening international human rights obligations under CEDAW and the due-diligence duty to criminalize and address all forms of sexual violence.
A central focus of the paper is India’s ongoing constitutional contest over Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC (now under the BNS), demonstrating how divergent court rulings and political reluctance have sustained a climate of impunity. The article argues that the exception violates Articles 14 and 21 by denying married women equal legal protection and the right to bodily autonomy. Beyond legal analysis, the paper incorporates public health research showing that marital rape causes particularly severe and chronic physical and psychological harm. Empirical studies confirm that sexual violence within marriage significantly intensifies PTSD and other mental-health outcomes beyond the effects of physical abuse alone.
Ultimately, the article concludes that the MRE is incompatible with contemporary constitutional principles, international human rights standards, and public health evidence. It calls for the universal adoption of consent-based rape laws, definitive judicial invalidation of marital immunity, gender-responsive institutional reforms, and trauma-informed support systems. Only sweeping legal and societal change can eliminate this long-standing form of state-enabled violence and affirm women’s full dignity, autonomy, and personhood.},
        keywords = {},
        month = {December},
        }