New Delhi, Jan 24 (PTI) Forced intercourse with wife violates her right to bodily integrity as well as her sexual decisional autonomy and there is no other legal provision, apart from the offence of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, sufficient to prosecute the husband for that wrongdoing, the Delhi High Court was told on Monday.   Senior advocate Rebecca John, who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court on the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under section 375 (rape) IPC, stated that the other offences that can be committed by the husband, including Sections 304 and 498A IPC and the violations under the domestic violence act, are distinct from the crime of rape and were introduced to deal with specific issues.“Section 498A includes an element of cruelty. It is not anyone"s case that rape is not a cruel act but cruelty in Section 498A is in connection with the dowry, which is different from rape in Section 375 IPC. Each of these offences is a standalone offence. Rape cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A,” said the senior lawyer who concluded her submissions in the case.The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar is hearing PILs filed by NGOs RIT Foundation, All India Democratic Women"s Association, a man and a woman seeking striking down of the exception granted to husbands under the Indian rape law.The court refused to entertain an intervention application and said that it cannot allow parties to interfere at a belated stage when the case has been pending for a long time.Lawyer J Sai Deepak, appearing for the intervenor, said that "there wasn"t a balance of representation with respect to the plurality of positions that are possible" on the issue.   The Centre sought time from the court to formulate its stand after consultation with the stakeholders.   While closing her submissions, John said that the striking down of the “immunity” granted to a husband concerning the offence of rape would not create a new offence and it disregarded a wife"s consent and the right to say no."As against marital expectations, the wife has the right to sexual decisional autonomy and therefore, in expectation versus right, it is the right of the woman which must be upheld,” she submitted.“A wife"s right to bodily integrity will stand violated if the expectation of sexual intercourse is translated into a physical act of forced sexual intercourse without consent,” the amicus said as she emphasised that the international treaties and covenants, such as Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, should also be taken into account while deciding the present case.She also said that there should be a sentencing board for the determination of the sentence to be awarded to an offender and discretion should be given to the trial court for reduction of sentence in appropriate cases.The amicus had earlier argued that there is no “right” but only an “expectation” of conjugal relations with wife in a marriage and the same also cannot lead to the husband having forced relations with her.She had also said that unlike several offences under the Indian Penal Code, the offence of rape was “gendered”, having "consent" of a woman as one of the ingredients and that the Justice JS Verma Committee report on amendments to criminal law had also recommended the deletion of the marital rape exception.The senior lawyer had further highlighted that such an exemption was not present in several other sexual offences in the IPC, including Section 354A IPC which concerns showing pornography to a female.Another amicus curiae and senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao had earlier told the court that apprehensions of misuse and protection of the institution of marriage cannot be a ground to sustain the marital rape exception in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).He had said that there was always a possibility of misuse of criminal offences and had the object of the legislation been to protect the institution of marriage, wives would not have been given the power to prosecute husbands for any offence including lessor sexual offences.The Delhi government has earlier told the court that marital rape was already covered as a "crime of cruelty" under the IPC.The Centre has earlier told the high court that it was considering a “constructive approach” to the issue and holding consultations with the stakeholders.  The central government, in its earlier affidavit filed in the case, has said that marital rape cannot be made a criminal offence as it could become a phenomenon that may destabilise the institution of marriage and an easy tool for harassing the husbands.        The petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under section 375 IPC (rape) on the ground that it discriminated against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.  The court will hear the matter next on January 25. PTI ADS RKS RKS