INTRODUCTION
The concept of “consent obtained on a false promise of marriage” emerged in Indian jurisprudence in recent decades as a consequence of societal and cultural factors wherein marriage holds great value, particularly for women. A number of cases have come before the courts wherein women have complained that sexual relations took place only on account of an explicit promise of marriage, which was later revoked.
In such a situation, the legal issue involved is: Was the promise honest or was it fraudulent, made with a wrong intent to exploit? As subjective intent and objective circumstances, respectively, often blur the dividing lines between an honest relationship and a deceitful one, a delicate analysis of both intent and circumstances is required.
KEY ASPECTS
- False Promise vs. Breach of Promise: The courts have distinguished between the mere “breach of promise”, where the intent to marry was genuine but could not be fulfilled due to later circumstances and the “false promise”, wherein there was no intention to marry from the very beginning.
– Breach of Promise: This may be due to the incompatibility of individuals, objections from the families, or even personal unforeseen reasons. This is a civil dispute or personal matter, not a crime.
– False Promise: In case it can be proved that the accused led the woman astray with the intent to deceive her so that she gives her consent for sexual intercourse, then it amounts to deception that vitiates the consent and the act is liable to be punished as rape.
- Social Context: In a conservative setup such as India, such relationships are highly stigmatized. This is more so with the female counterpart. There are many women who might have entered into such relations with a promise of marriage. Once these promises are broken, the implications might lead to extremely disastrous emotional, social, and at times financial consequences.
- Changing Jurisprudence: Indian courts have witnessed an increase in the number of rape allegations due to false promises of marriage, especially with the changing societal norms and attitudes regarding premarital relationships. In this context, the courts must balance protecting women from exploitation with the need to avoid misusing the law as a tool to settle personal vendettas.
RECENT DEVELOPEMNETS
In its judgment, the Court observed that where a woman has had a physical relationship with a man for a long time, it cannot be held that the relationship was solely based on the man’s promise to marry her.
To establish the crime of false marital rape, it must be proven that the sexual relationship was based solely on the promise to marry and that the woman’s consent was invalidated by misrepresentation when the man then refused to marry her.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed: “In our view, if a man is charged with having sexual intercourse by false promise and whether he is criminally liable or not, any physical relationship of this kind must be traced directly to the false promise made and not determined by other circumstances or considerations. A woman may have other reasons for having a physical relationship apart from the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal affection for the male partner which does not entail a formal marital relationship.
In a case where the woman intentionally maintains a physical relationship for a long period of time, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was solely due to the promise of marriage by the man.
The Court made this observation while quashing an FIR filed against a man for rape, which was filed by a woman after their relationship broke down. The appellant maintained that the relationship was consensual and claimed that the allegations were baseless and were made only after he stopped supporting the complainant financially.
The Court dismissed the complainant’s claim that the appellant had forced her to have sex under the guise of a false promise of marriage. Justice N. in his judgment, Kotiswar Singh found that the physical relationship, which lasted for 10 years without any persistent objection or protest, indicated mutual consent rather than coercion. The court found that it was difficult for the plaintiff to maintain a relationship for nine years based solely on the promise of marriage, especially when there was no evidence of fraud from the outset.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s clarification regarding the boundary of consent over cases of false promises of marriage is, in itself, a giant leap towards justice and fairness. By distinguishing between relationships that go sour by mistake and those that have been contrived to gain advantage over the other person, the Court has upheld the balance between protecting the rights of the individual while holding accountable. This judgment not only protects women from being misled but also prevents legal provisions from being misused to criminalize consensual relationships. It underlines the need for honesty, trust, and integrity in intimate relationships, thereby setting precedence for nuanced and evidence-based judicial interpretations. This development only strengthens the legal framework such that justice is served consistent with the evolution of society’s values and constitutional principles.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHAKCHI VERMA
