The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, raised concerns over the increasing number of rape cases being filed on the grounds of false promises of marriage. A Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal observed that failed romantic relationships or engagements should not automatically lead to criminal allegations, particularly in a society where moral values and social norms are evolving.
Court’s Observations on the Issue
The case in question involved a man who sought to quash rape charges filed against him by a woman he was once engaged to. The woman claimed she had been coerced into a sexual relationship under the false pretext of marriage.
Addressing this issue, the Bench remarked, “If you were so gullible, you would not be before us. You were an adult and cannot claim to have been deceived into believing in marriage. With changing societal values, if we accept your argument, any relationship between young adults, such as those in college, could be criminalized. If a boy and girl are in a relationship and one says ‘I will marry you next week’ but later changes his mind, should that be treated as an offence?”
The Role of a Conservative Mindset:
The Court noted that such cases often stem from deep-seated societal conservatism, where men are predominantly held accountable for failed relationships.
The Bench stated, “There is a flaw in our system where, at times, women file multiple cases against their in-laws. We acknowledge the victim’s concerns, but a balanced view is necessary.”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the complainant, countered that this was not a case of a failed romance but an arranged marriage. She emphasized the significance of consent, stating,
“This was not a casual relationship but an engagement. The woman’s consent was not freely given. She feared that if she did not comply, the marriage might not take place. The breaking of an engagement carries significant social stigma.”
Legal Perspective and Gender Parity
The Court further deliberated on the broader implications of such cases. It pointed out that if non-consummation of a marriage could lead to allegations of marital rape, the same logic could extend to engagements. The Bench also highlighted that the complainant’s ability to engage a senior lawyer was an indication that she was not entirely powerless in the situation.
Justice Sundresh also took this opportunity to comment on gender parity within marriage laws, particularly the provision of restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.
He remarked, “Forcing a woman to stay with a man under the law should be reconsidered. Gender equality must be upheld in marriage laws.”
Final Stand of the Court
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to examine the accused’s appeal in greater detail, signaling the need for a nuanced approach to such cases. The proceedings underscore the complex intersection of personal relationships, legal obligations, and societal norms in contemporary India.
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the evolving legal landscape surrounding consent, engagement, and the criminal justice system’s role in addressing disputes arising from relationships. As society progresses, the legal system must strike a balance between protecting genuine victims and preventing the misuse of laws meant to ensure justice.
Read Also:
