Justice C Hari Shankar, who formed part of the division bench hearing a batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape, orally observed that a non-marital relation, no matter how close, and a marital relationship cannot be "parallelised". New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday said that while there can be no compromise with women's right to sexual autonomy and any act of rape has to be punished, there is a "qualitative difference" between a marital and a non-marital relationship as marriage gives a legal right to expect reasonable sexual relation from the spouse and it played a part in the marital rape exemption in criminal law. Justice C Hari Shankar, who formed part of the division bench hearing a batch of petitions seeking criminalisation of marital rape, orally observed that a non-marital relation, no matter how close, and a marital relationship cannot be "parallelised". The court questioned as to why the exception from the offence of rape granted to a married couple had remained in the legislature for several years in spite of developments suggesting the contrary and remarked that "one of the possible reasons" was the wide scope of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code which included even a single act of "unwilling sex" as rape. "Let's take a newly married couple... If the wife says not today and the husband says then I'm going (out of the house), then it is rape if we knock off the exception and I am not in agreement. A boy and girl, howsoever close, neither have the right to expect sexual congress. There is an absolute right to each to say I will not have sex with you. In a marriage, there is a qualitative difference," Justice Shankar said. "When a party gets married, there is a right - it can lead to divorce - a legal right to expect a normal, reasonable sexual relationship with your partner... That qualitative difference has a part to play in the exception," explained the judge, clarifying that he was neither expressing his final opinion on the petitions nor examining "whether marital rape should be punished" at this stage. Justice Shankar also emphasised that the offence of rape was punishable with 10 years imprisonment and the issue of removal of marital rape exemption required "serious consideration". "There is no compromise with a woman's right to sexual and bodily integrity. A husband has no business to compel. (But) the court can't ignore what happens with we knock it (marital rape exception) off," he stated. The judge also expressed his reservations with regards to the use of the term "marital rape", saying that every act of rape has to be punished and repeated use of "marital rape" to define any form of an unwilling sexual relationship between a husband and a wife was a "pre-decision". "There is no (concept of) marital rape in India... If it is rape - marital, non-marital or any kind, it has to be punished. Repeated use of the word, according to me, obfuscates the actual issue," he said. The judge also said that in his prima facie opinion, concerns surrounding misuse were not relevant to deciding the issue of criminalising marital rape.