In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the legal interpretation of consensual sexual relationships amounting to rape on the false pretext of marriage. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh ruled that for such an allegation to hold, it must be demonstrated that the sexual relationship occurred solely due to a false promise of marriage and that the woman’s consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact.
The Court emphasized that a consensual relationship spanning a long duration cannot automatically qualify as rape solely because the man failed to honor his promise of marriage. It highlighted that a woman might engage in a physical relationship for reasons beyond the promise of marriage, such as personal affection or other considerations, which cannot be construed as consent obtained through deception.
Key Observations of the Court
- Nexus Between Promise and Relationship:
The Court observed that a physical relationship can be deemed as rape on a false promise of marriage only if it is conclusively established that the relationship was directly and solely influenced by the promise of marriage. - Prolonged Relationships and Consent:
It noted that in prolonged relationships maintained knowingly by the woman, it is difficult to conclude that her consent was entirely based on a promise of marriage. In the case at hand, the decade-long consensual relationship showed no evidence of deception at the outset. - Danger of Criminalizing Broken Relationships:
The Court expressed concern about the rising trend of criminalizing consensual relationships after they turn sour, warning that such practices could unjustly attribute criminal intent to civil disputes, leading to misuse of the criminal justice system.
Case Details
The judgment came in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 897. The petitioner argued that the allegations against him were false and arose after he stopped providing financial assistance to the complainant. The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the man, ruling that the allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence and the relationship was consensual.
The Court rejected the complainant’s assertion of forceful intercourse under the false pretext of marriage, citing her prolonged participation in the relationship without consistent objection. It concluded that attributing criminal liability at a late stage in such cases could have severe ramifications for personal relationships.
Judicial Precedents and Related Observations
The bench also highlighted the increasing number of similar cases before the Court, where allegations of false promises of marriage emerged only after prolonged consensual relationships ended. Such cases, the Court warned, risk diluting genuine claims and overburdening the criminal justice system.
This judgment reinforces the principle that not all failed relationships constitute a criminal offense, urging courts to carefully scrutinize the facts before arriving at a conclusion.
Lawcutor 