When a touch that makes a woman uncomfortable can be counted as sexual harassment, an act as grave as rape cannot be out ruled just because there are fewer or no signs of injury.

The woman stated in her appeal that she had been denied her conjugal rights because her husband was a womaniser and an alcoholic. However, the bench did observe that, aside from her own statement, the woman had not provided any documentary evidence for her claims.

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently made a major decision, concluding that a wife’s desire to work does not imply cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On Tuesday, October 4th, the Bombay High Court’s bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke ruled that the wife’s acts did not violate Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It was also stated that the woman had brought up a complaint that she had been mistreated while living with her spouse and was reluctant to return to the same city.

The husband claimed that he gave up on his career and took charge of household chores so that his wife could study and get a job.

The two women’s sentences were reduced by a bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and SV Kotwal

Even in this day and age, the definition of consent remains clear to many, so does what amounts to its violation.

A Mumbai woman filed a petition against the guidelines under the POSH Act in the Supreme Court of India.

The organisations and individuals who filed an FIR against that alleged that Ranaut portrayed the protest as a Khalistani movement in the social media post.

In 2013, a 23-year-old photojournalist had gone to Shakti Mills in Mumbai, Maharashtra, along with a male colleague for a photo shoot. In there five men tied the colleague and gangraped the photojournalist.