The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on Thursday ruling that a married woman cannot initiate rape proceedings based on a “false promise of marriage” if she knowingly engaged in a consensual relationship while her marriage was still legally subsisting.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed criminal proceedings against a lawyer, emphasizing that such a promise is “legally unenforceable” because the woman is not eligible for marriage under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court expressed deep concern over the rising trend of consensual relationships being converted into criminal allegations once they turn acrimonious, warning against the misuse of the criminal justice system as a tool for personal vendetta.
Landmark SC Judgment
The case involved a female advocate who alleged she was raped by a male colleague under the pretext of a marriage promise between 2022 and 2024.
However, the court noted that the complainant was already married during the entire period of the relationship, with her divorce proceedings still pending at the time of the alleged offence.
The bench clarified that for a “promise of marriage” to be considered a factor in vitiating consent, the promise must be one that can legally be fulfilled.
Since the law strictly prohibits bigamy, the court held that the complainant, especially being a legal professional, could not claim to have been “misled” by a promise that was legally impossible to perform.
Consent Versus Heartbreak
In its detailed observation, the Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of distinguishing between a “breach of promise” and a “false promise made from the inception.” The justices described this specific matter as a “classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious.”
By examining the essential ingredients of Section 376 of the IPC, the bench asserted that courts must be “extremely careful” to identify genuine cases of sexual violence.
They noted that when two consenting adults enter a relationship with full knowledge of their legal marital status, a subsequent fallout should not be weaponised to inflict “indelible stigma” and “grave injustice” upon the accused through the machinery of criminal law.
Preventing Law Misuse
The judgment further addressed the broader social implication of filing retaliatory FIRs. The court observed that the “profound concern” lies in the fact that converting every soured relationship into a rape offence trivialises the suffering of actual survivors of sexual assault.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that the criminal law is intended to protect the vulnerable, not to be used as a “tool of vengeance” for settling personal scores or emotional grievances.
By quashing the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet, the top court sent a clear message: while the law remains a shield for those facing genuine coercion, it cannot be used to bypass the legal realities of matrimonial status in consensual adult partnerships.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that the integrity of our legal system rests on its ability to protect the innocent while ensuring that stringent laws are not diluted by frivolous litigation. Rape is a heinous crime that leaves deep scars, and the legal framework must remain a sanctuary for genuine victims.
However, we must also foster a culture where personal responsibility and legal awareness go hand in hand. Using criminal law to adjudicate personal betrayals in consensual relationships not only burdens an already clogged judiciary but also risks creating a society where the search for truth is clouded by vindictiveness.
We advocate for a balanced approach where empathy for emotional hurt does not override the fundamental principles of legal fairness and due process.
