New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday made notable observations on pre-marital physical relationships while hearing a bail application in a case involving rape allegations based on a false marriage promise.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stressed that individuals must exercise utmost caution before engaging in physical relations prior to marriage. The court observed that irrespective of how deep a relationship may appear, a man and woman legally and socially remain strangers until marriage is solemnised, and lack of prudence can result in complicated legal and personal ramifications.
Court questions pre-marital physical intimacy
Justice Nagarathna voiced a conventional view on relationship progression during the hearing, raising questions about the decision to become physically intimate before marriage. The Justice acknowledged that while the court’s stance may seem traditional, it is challenging to understand the transition to physical relations when no formal bond exists between the individuals. The bench underscored that people must stay alert and cautious about promises made during courtship, stating unequivocally that nobody should be entirely trusted before marriage is actually performed.
Case involves accusations of fraud and coercion
The matter centres on a 30-year-old woman who connected with the petitioner via a matrimonial website in 2022. As per the prosecution’s case, the man enticed the woman into a physical relationship by assuring marriage, though he was already married to another woman. The relationship allegedly extended across several locations, including Delhi and Dubai. The complainant has further claimed that the petitioner filmed intimate videos without her permission and employed them to blackmail her, and she subsequently learned that he had married a third woman in Punjab in early 2024.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu BJP Chief Apologises To Vijay And Trisha Over Derogatory Remarks
Court queries complainant’s choices, suggests mediation
According to LiveLaw, Justice Nagarathna questioned the complainant’s decision to travel to Dubai to meet the petitioner before any formal marriage. When the government’s counsel contended that the travel was based on matrimonial intent established through the matrimonial platform, the judge responded that if someone values the institution of marriage, they should avoid such travel and intimacy until the wedding is completed. The bench observed that cases involving seemingly consensual relationships are frequently unsuited for conventional trial and conviction proceedings.
Court favours settlement over prosecution
Though the Delhi High Court had earlier rejected bail on grounds that the petitioner’s marriage promise seemed fraudulent from the outset, the Supreme Court has signalled a preference for an alternative approach. The bench indicated its intention to direct the parties towards mediation to explore a settlement instead of pursuing criminal conviction. The case has been listed for further hearing on Wednesday to assess whether a mediated resolution can be achieved between both parties.
-
-
-
-
