Allegations Of False Promise Of Marriage Unsustainable When Victim Is In Subsisting Marriage: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that allegations of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained when the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while granting regular bail to the petitioner accused of sexually assaulting a woman on the pretext of marriage, observed. “Though the allegations are serious, since the victim...
The Kerala High Court has held that allegations of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained when the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while granting regular bail to the petitioner accused of sexually assaulting a woman on the pretext of marriage, observed.
“Though the allegations are serious, since the victim is already in a subsisting marriage, allegation of sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage cannot legally exist, atleast prima facie.”
The prosecution alleged that from 2016 until July 2025, the petitioner, who is Sub-Inspector of Police has maintained a relationship with the complainant and sexually assaulted the victim under a promise of marriage at various places and even lived with the victim.
The Court noted that the investigation revealed that the victim had been living with the petitioner till July 2025. In the meantime, the petitioner is alleged to have married another woman in January 2025.
The Court, however, pointed out that the complainant was already married to another man, and though she had separated, the marriage had not been legally dissolved. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020 (5) SCC1], the Court held that allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage cannot legally stand when the complainant is already married.
The Court also observed that the prosecution failed to establish the necessity of custodial interrogation and concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary.
However, the Court has directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and subject himself to interrogation.
The bail was granted with conditions, requiring Petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from contacting the complainant, and remain in India unless permitted by the Court.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Case No: Bail Appl. 9593/ 2025
Citation: 2021 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
Counsel for Petitioner: Muhammed Zain Shabeer P P. Shibu Babu
Counsel for Respondent: Prasanth M P (PP)