The Supreme Court of India on Monday made pointed oral observations on pre-marital relationships and the need for caution in personal relationships while hearing a bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape on the promise of marriage. The court’s remarks came during proceedings before a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
The bench was hearing the bail application of a man accused of establishing a physical relationship with a woman after allegedly promising to marry her, despite already being married at the time. According to the prosecution, the accused later married another woman in Punjab in January 2024.
The complainant alleged that she met the accused in 2022 through a matrimonial services website, where discussions regarding marriage began. Based on assurances of marriage, she entered into a physical relationship with him, which reportedly included meetings abroad, including in Dubai.
The prosecution further claimed that intimate videos of their encounters were recorded without the woman’s consent and that she was subsequently threatened with their circulation. The woman later discovered that the accused had been married throughout their relationship.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna made strong verbal remarks emphasizing caution before entering physical relationships prior to marriage.
“Maybe we are old-fashioned, but before marriage, a boy and a girl are strangers. Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship, we fail to understand how they can be in a physical relationship before marriage,” she observed.
The judge further cautioned against placing unquestioned trust in promises made before marriage, stating, “You must be very careful. Nobody should believe anybody before marriage.”
When informed that the couple had met on a matrimonial platform and were planning to marry, the bench questioned the circumstances surrounding the complainant’s decision to travel abroad with the accused prior to marriage.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that if marriage was a primary consideration, such travel should have been avoided before formalizing the relationship. “She should not have gone before marriage if she was so strict about it,” the court noted.
The bench indicated that the dispute appeared to arise out of a consensual relationship rather than a straightforward criminal offence warranting immediate conviction. The judges suggested mediation as a possible way forward.
“These are not cases which are to be tried and convicted when there is a consensual relationship,” the bench observed, adding that the parties may be referred to mediation to explore resolution.
Cases involving allegations of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage have increasingly come before Indian courts in recent years. Courts have repeatedly examined whether consent was obtained through deception or whether the relationship remained consensual despite later disputes.
Legal experts note that judicial scrutiny in such matters often hinges on whether the promise of marriage was genuine at the time it was made or was a deliberate misrepresentation intended to secure consent.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on Wednesday, when the court is expected to consider the bail plea in greater detail and decide on the next course of action, including possible mediation between the parties.
The court’s oral observations, while not constituting a final ruling, have sparked discussion on evolving social norms, consent, and the legal interpretation of relationships formed through matrimonial platforms in contemporary India.
Leave Your Comment