In the context of Indian history, the Rakhmabai case of 1884 revolved around

1. Women’s right to gain education

2. Age of consent

3. Restitution of conjugal rights

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

The correct answer is 2 and 3 only (i.e., the case revolved around the Age of consent and the Restitution of conjugal rights).

Detailed Explanation:

The Rakhmabai case of 1884 is one of the most landmark legal cases in colonial Indian history, which directly led to major social reform legislation regarding women's rights and marriage laws.

1. Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Point 3):
Rakhmabai was married off as a child at the age of eleven to Dadaji Bhikaji. However, she continued to live with her stepfather and mother, pursuing her education. When she grew up, she refused to go and live with her husband, Dadaji. In 1884, Dadaji filed a petition in the Bombay High Court seeking the "restitution of conjugal rights" to compel her to live with him as his wife. Rakhmabai resisted, arguing that she could not be forced to enter into a conjugal relationship that was entered into when she was an infant incapable of giving consent. This made the case directly center around the legal concept of restitution of conjugal rights in colonial courts.

2. Age of Consent (Point 2):
The publicity and debates generated by this trial drew widespread attention to the issues of child marriage and the lack of consent for young brides. Social reformers, both in India and Britain, used the case to lobby for legal protections. This public pressure eventually culminated in the enactment of the Age of Consent Act, 1891, which raised the age of consent for sexual intercourse for all girls (married or unmarried) from ten to twelve years. Thus, the case was intrinsically linked to the issue of the age of consent.

3. Women’s Right to Gain Education (Point 1):
Although Rakhmabai herself was highly educated and later went on to become one of the first practicing woman doctors in colonial India, the specific legal case of 1884 itself did not revolve around or seek to establish a legal right for women to gain education. Education was her personal background context, not the subject matter of the litigation.

Consequently, statement 1 is incorrect, while statements 2 and 3 are correct.