The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a married woman who voluntarily enters into a physical relationship with another man cannot later file a rape case on the ground that the relationship was based on a false promise of marriage. The court expressed concern over the misuse of criminal law in cases where consensual relationships turn bitter.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that when a woman is already married, she is legally incapable of entering into another marriage during the subsistence of her existing marital relationship. Therefore, the court held that the allegation of consent obtained on a promise of marriage cannot be sustained in such circumstances.
The ruling came while the Supreme Court was hearing a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against a lawyer. The case had been filed by a woman advocate who alleged that the accused had sexually assaulted her on the assurance that he would marry her. The accused challenged the proceedings, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant was already married at the time.
After examining the facts of the case, the bench held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court noted that for a claim of rape based on a false promise of marriage to be valid, the promise must be legally capable of being fulfilled at the time it was made.
The judges further explained that where a woman is legally barred from marrying due to an existing marriage, the element of deception required to invoke the offence of rape on false promise grounds does not arise. In such cases, consent cannot be said to have been obtained by misrepresentation related to marriage.
The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a tool for settling personal scores or as a response to failed relationships. It cautioned against the growing tendency to invoke serious criminal charges in matters arising out of consensual relationships between adults.
At the same time, the bench clarified that its observations were limited to the facts of the case before it. The court emphasised that genuine cases of sexual assault must be dealt with strictly and sensitively, and that its ruling should not be interpreted as undermining the rights of victims of sexual violence.
Legal experts say the judgment reinforces earlier Supreme Court rulings that distinguish between rape and consensual sexual relationships, even when such relationships later end acrimoniously. The decision highlights the importance of examining consent, intent and legal capacity while dealing with allegations involving a promise of marriage.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused lawyer, bringing clarity on the legal position regarding false promise of marriage in cases involving married individuals.
