The Supreme Court of India recently raised concerns over the increasing number of rape cases filed based on false promises of marriage. A Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal highlighted that a broken romance or engagement should not automatically translate into a criminal case, particularly in light of evolving social and moral norms.

The Case in Question

The Court was hearing an appeal from a man seeking to quash rape charges filed against him by his former fiancée. The woman alleged that she was coerced into a sexual relationship under the false pretext of marriage. However, the Court questioned whether such cases should always be treated as rape, given that the complainant was an adult and had engaged in the relationship willingly.

“If you were so gullible, you would not be before us. You were a major. It cannot be that you were hoodwinked into believing that you will get married, etc.,” Justice Sundresh observed. The Court further stated that criminalizing all failed relationships would set a dangerous precedent, potentially criminalizing many romantic relationships among consenting adults.

The Role of a Conservative Mindset

The Bench pointed out that the rise in such cases often stems from a conservative mindset that places the blame on the man when a relationship does not culminate in marriage. Justice Sundresh remarked that sometimes, such allegations are used as a tool for revenge, with women launching multiple cases against their in-laws.

“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 Bench noted. The Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers the perspectives of both parties.

Legal Arguments and Counterarguments

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the woman, argued that this was not a case of a casual relationship but an arranged marriage scenario. According to her, the woman consented to sexual relations under societal pressure and fear that refusing would jeopardize the engagement.

“This is not a romantic relationship that went sour. They were engaged. It may be casual sex for him, but not for the woman,” Divan asserted.

However, the Court countered that if this logic were followed, it could open the floodgates for allegations of marital rape, irrespective of whether the couple was legally married or not.

“What difference does it make? Tomorrow, disregarding whether married or not, marital rape can be alleged. The only fact is that marriage did not happen,” the Bench observed.

The Importance of Consent and Free Will

One of the primary concerns in such cases is the concept of consent. The Court questioned whether the woman’s consent was genuinely coerced or if she willingly participated in the relationship with the understanding that it might not necessarily lead to marriage.

Justice Sundresh pointed out that hiring a senior lawyer like Divan suggested that the woman was not as gullible as she claimed to be. “Engaging such a senior lawyer… we cannot say the girl is so gullible,” he remarked.

Need for a Gender-Neutral Perspective

The Court also emphasized the importance of viewing such cases through an impartial lens rather than favoring one gender over the other. Justice Sundresh stated that as a father, he would want to analyze such cases broadly rather than emotionally.

“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,” he said.

Justice Bindal added that entering a relationship comes with the understanding that it may or may not last. “You did accept the relationship with the option that it can be broken off someday,” he noted.

Societal Pressure and Women’s Bargaining Power

Divan argued that societal pressure often influences a woman’s decisions in such cases. She pointed out that the complainant’s father had cancer and wanted her to get married soon, making her more vulnerable to coercion.

“Women usually do not have the bargaining power. Her father had cancer, and he wanted her married. The woman only wanted to please the man,” Divan said.

Reevaluating the Hindu Marriage Act

During the hearing, Justice Sundresh also called for a reevaluation of the Hindu Marriage Act’s restitution of conjugal rights provisions, which compel a woman to stay with her husband.

“I firmly believe that there should be gender parity under the Hindu Marriage Act (restitution of conjugal rights). I think, how can there be a norm forcing a woman to stay with the man?” he questioned.

Final Decision and Future Implications

The Court has decided to examine the appeal in detail before passing a final judgment. The case underscores the evolving legal interpretations of consent, relationships, and the role of social norms in determining the legitimacy of rape allegations based on false promises of marriage.

As Indian society continues to progress, courts will need to strike a balance between protecting genuine victims of exploitation and preventing misuse of the law to settle personal grievances. The Supreme Court’s observations in this case signal a potential shift towards a more nuanced and gender-neutral approach to such sensitive legal matters.

Also Read

Virtual & Physical Internship by Advocate Ak Bhambri
2nd IDIA ICUL Essay Writing Competition by National Law University, Jodhpur
Internship Opportunity at Bheniwala Law Associates