Educated Woman In Relationship Despite Knowing Partner's Marital Status Can't Be Said To Be Exploited In Law: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that when an independent and educated woman willingly continues to engage in a romantic relationship even with knowledge of her partner's marital status, it cannot be said that she was misled or exploited in law.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that permitting failed relationship between two consenting adult to be converted into the offence of...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that when an independent and educated woman willingly continues to engage in a romantic relationship even with knowledge of her partner's marital status, it cannot be said that she was misled or exploited in law.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that permitting failed relationship between two consenting adult to be converted into the offence of rape would violate constitutional vision of justice as well as the very objective of sexual offences law.
The Court held that rape law is not designed to become a tool in disputes where two consenting adults, fully aware of their choices and the attendant consequences, subsequently fall apart.
It added that adults entering into intimate relationships must take responsibility for the decisions they voluntarily make, including the emotional, social or legal risks inherent.
“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the criminal justice system is increasingly being burdened with FIRs for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC where allegations of sexual exploitation are levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships,” the Court said.
It added that many cases come before the Courts where the parties, being majors, voluntarily engage in sexual relations over a span of time, and when the relationship eventually fails, allegations of rape are pressed.
“To permit every such failed relationship to be converted into a criminal prosecution for rape would be contrary not only to the constitutional vision of justice, but also to the very spirit and object of the law of sexual offences,” the Court said.
Justice Sharma quashed a rape case against a man accused of sexually harassing the complainant under the false pretext of marriage, coupled with fraud and cheating.
Quashing the FIR, the Court said that the case was a clear example of a situation where a consensual relationship, albeit complicated, cannot be clothed with the allegation of rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in the manner one party desired.
The complainant alleged that the accused committed rape upon her repeatedly under false promise of marriage, despite having no intention to marry her, and had later solemnized marriage with another woman.
It added that while Court's role is not to sit in judgment over the morality of such relationships, nor to enforce notions of social propriety between consenting adults, but at the same time, the law cannot be stretched to shield a party from the foreseeable consequences of choices made consciously and repeatedly.
“To do so would not only trivialize the gravity of genuine cases of sexual assault but would also risk turning the solemn remedy of criminal law into an instrument of vengeance or leverage,” the Court said.
On the facts of the case, Justice Sharma noted that once the formal proposal of marriage between the families had failed due to the demand of dowry, the complainant and the accused continued to meet each other, travelled together and had voluntarily entered into a relationship, including a physical one.
It further noted that even after the complainant had come to know that the accused had contracted another marriage, she continued to accompany him and maintained sexual relations with him.
“These circumstances lend credence to the contention of the petitioner that the relationship between the parties was consensual and not induced by a false promise of marriage,” the Court said.
“This Court reiterates that the role of the Court is to adjudicate a case before it, as per law and not preach as to whether such kinds of relationships are morally right or to impose social norms on consenting adults. As observed above, at the same time, the law cannot be used to protect a party from the predictable outcomes of his or her deliberate and repeated decisions,” it added while quashing the FIR.
Title: ANKIT RAJ v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1072