Kerala High Court: Married Woman Cannot Claim Rape Based on False Promise of Marriage
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court held that a married woman cannot allege that she was forced into a sexual relationship on the false promise of marriage. The court stated that such claims may not hold if both individuals were aware of her existing marriage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who passed the order, clarified that every case involving allegations of rape or deceitful sex must be considered based on its own facts. He said, “It is difficult at this stage to decide whether the sexual relationship was consensual or not. The full circumstances must be examined, especially when a married woman engages in a physical relationship with someone else. If both parties knew she was already married, then sex cannot be considered to have occurred with a promise of marriage.”
The court made these observations while hearing a bail application filed by a man accused of luring a married woman into sex by falsely promising to marry her. He was charged under Sections 84 (enticing or taking away a married woman with criminal intent) and 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Section 69 includes false promises of marriage and carries a punishment of up to 10 years in jail.
According to the prosecution, the man allegedly raped the woman after falsely promising marriage. He was also accused of threatening to release private photos and videos of the woman after borrowing ₹2.5 lakh from her. He has been in custody since June 13.
The man’s lawyer denied all charges and argued that the woman only made the rape allegation to pressure the accused into repaying the money. He claimed that the matter was essentially a financial dispute.
The High Court noted that according to earlier rulings under Section 376 of the old Indian Penal Code (IPC), a promise to marry cannot be made if one party is already married. Since the woman in this case is married, the court found it doubtful whether Section 69 of the BNS applied.
Additionally, the court pointed out that Section 84 of the BNS is a bailable offence.
Taking all this into account, the court decided to grant bail to the accused.
Advocates Ameen Hassan K and Rebin Vincent Gralan appeared for the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Noushad KA represented the State.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
