E-Paper
Madhya Pradesh high court says married woman can’t claim consent was taken on false promise to marry: Report
Justice Maninder S Bhatti dismissed a rape case against a man based on a complaint filed by a married woman who had physical relations with him.
The Madhya Pradesh high court has ruled that a married woman could not claim that her consent for physical relations with another man was taken on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, reported Bar and Bench.
Also Read: Woman dies of husband’s sexual act, HC cites marital rape ground to acquit him
Justice Maninder S Bhatti on February 10 dismissed a rape case against a man based on a complaint filed by a married woman, who had physical relations with him. The woman claimed that the man had promised he would divorce his wife and marry her, based on which he had established a sexual relationship with her.
Also Read: West Bengal courts pronounced 6 death penalties in last 6 months for crimes against girls: Report
Justice Bhatti said when the complainant was a married woman, consent for a physical relationship on the pretext of a false promise was not the same as one established under a "misconception" of facts.
“The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court postulate that when the prosecutrix is married lady, and therefore, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of the consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of the fact’," the judge said.
The accused man, who is married, had moved the high court after the woman accused him of rape. The woman was married to a driver and had two children as well.
According to the woman's complaint, the accused and she resided in the same neighbourhood and had been in a friendship for three months. She alleged that the accused had promised to marry her after divorcing his wife and had begun a sexual relationship with her, but later backtracked, stating that he was not in a position to divorce his wife.
The court, in its judgment, stated that the FIR did not reveal any "false promise of marriage" under which the accused pressurised the complainant to enter into a sexual relationship.
Justice Bhatti added that in such a case, “the FIR is required to be nipped in the bud” as the complaint itself at face value does not indicate an offence was committed.
