SC flags rise in rape cases on the false promise of marriage

NEW DELHI The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the increasing number of rape cases filed on the grounds of false promises of marriage, cautioning against criminalising relationships that do not culminate in wedlock.

A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal remarked that failed romances and break-ups should not automatically lead to rape allegations, particularly in the context of evolving societal norms.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking to quash rape charges levelled against him by a woman to whom he was engaged. The woman claimed that she had been coerced into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage. Senior counsel Geeta Luthra appeared for the man while senior advocate Madhavi Divan represented the woman.

“If you were so gullible, you would not be before us. You were a major. It cannot be that you were hoodwinked to believe that you will get married, etc. With due respect, today the concept of morality and virtues is different with the younger lot. If we agree with you, then any relation between a boy and a girl in college will become punishable. Suppose they love each other, and the girl resists, and the boy says, ‘I will marry you next week,’ but later does not—so again, an offence?” the court observed.

The bench further noted that such cases often stem from a conservative outlook, where societal expectations unfairly place blame on men.

“The conservative mind is at play because the man is blamed here. There are lacunae in our system. At times, the girl launches five cases against her in-laws…” the court said.

Divan relied that this was not a case of a failed romantic relationship but rather an arranged marriage scenario.

“The consent in the present case cannot be said to be free consent, Milords…She thinks that if she does not please him, he may not marry her. They were engaged. It may be casual sex for him but not for the woman,” Divan contended.

The bench, however, questioned whether the absence of marriage alone was sufficient to constitute an offence.

“We cannot look at it from only one lens. We have no attachment to one gender. I also have a daughter, and if she were in this position, I would need to look at it from a broader perspective. Now see, in this case, can conviction be secured with such weak material?” justice Sundresh asked.

Justice Bindal added that the complainant had entered into the relationship with the understanding that it could eventually end. In response, Divan argued that women often lack bargaining power in such situations.

Following the submissions, the court decided to examine the man’s appeal in detail, posting it for a future date.