The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a rape case, stating that a woman cannot allege rape only because a long-term consensual relationship did not lead to marriage. The court emphasized the difference between a failed promise and intentional deceit.
The Bombay High Court ruled that breaking a marriage promise due to parental opposition does not amount to rape, distinguishing between a breach of promise and making a false promise.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a married woman cannot claim she was cheated if a man failed to fulfill a marriage promise. The court quashed the FIR, stating that no legal bond existed between them.
The Bombay High Court ruled that breaching a marriage promise due to parental opposition does not amount to rape, emphasizing the distinction between breach of promise and not fulfilling a false promise under Section 375 of the IPC.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that one year is enough time for a prudent woman to differentiate between a mere breach of promise and a false promise of marriage. The court quashed an FIR filed under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506 of the IPC, emphasizing that this case involved a breach of promise rather than deception.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an FIR filed by a married woman who claimed she was cheated by a man for breaking his promise of marriage. The court ruled that since she was already married, no such promise could be legally upheld.
The Bombay High Court ruled that breaching a marriage promise due to parental opposition does not constitute rape, emphasizing the distinction between breaking a promise and making a false promise. Discover the details of this significant judgment.
