A recent Supreme Court judgment has provided clarity on the circumstances under which a consensual sexual relationship can be considered rape based on a false promise of marriage.

The Court noted that when a woman has been in a long-term physical relationship with a man, it cannot be conclusively assumed that the relationship was solely based on the man's promise to marry her. It further mentioned that a woman may engage in a physical relationship for reasons beyond a promise of marriage.

For the offence of rape on the false pretext of marriage to be established, it must be proven that the sexual relationship was exclusively based on the promise of marriage, and the woman's consent was rendered invalid due to a misconception of fact when the man later refused to marry her.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed:

“In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties.

In a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the man to marry her.

The bench made these remarks while quashing an FIR filed against a man for the offence of rape, which was lodged by a woman following the breakdown of their relationship.

The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and claimed the allegations were baseless, brought forward only after he stopped providing financial support to the complainant.

The Court dismissed the complainant's claim that the appellant had forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her under the guise of a false promise of marriage.

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in the judgment, observed that the decade-long physical relationship, sustained without persistent protest or objection, indicated mutual consent rather than coercion. The Court found it unlikely that the complainant would have maintained the relationship for nine years solely based on a promise of marriage, especially in the absence of evidence suggesting deception from the beginning.

The Court, in its judgment, also raised concerns about the growing trend of filing criminal cases against men following the end of consensual relationships.

“It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.”

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mrunal Dattatraya Buva, Adv. Mr. Dhairyashil Salunkhe, Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

Case Title: MAHESH DAMU KHARE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA