The Delhi High Court has held that terminating a relationship after a period of courtship, based on a considered decision, cannot automatically be construed as a breach of promise to marry. In a bail order passed by Justice Arun Monga, the court granted relief to a man accused of sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage. The bench observed that two consenting adults had entered into a relationship with the intention of exploring a marital alliance, and that one party later chose not to proceed, which should not be equated with deception.
In the facts before the court, the complainant met the accused via a matrimonial site. She alleged that the man represented himself as financially stable and promised marriage in Dubai after returning from abroad. After they met in India, he took her to a hotel, made advances, and supposedly reinforced the promise to marry. The complainant claimed he had taken objectionable photographs during their meeting and that, upon being pressed to solemnize the marriage, he and his family began making unreasonable demands—such as a flat in Dubai, a luxury car, and large amounts of money. She alleged that they threatened her with canceled marriage if these demands were not met, and that there was a conspiracy involving the accused’s mother and sister to exploit her through false promises.
Granting bail, the High Court said that the core of courtship is to test compatibility, and that doctrinalizing that persons can never change their mind would frustrate the very essence of premarital interactions. The court noted that the complainant, in a WhatsApp message, had admitted that physical intimacy never occurred, creating a direct contradiction with her FIR. It held that the mere claim of sexual relations on the promise of marriage, where a genuine intent to marry may have existed, does not necessarily amount to rape. The court also observed that alleged demands made later, even if true, did not attract Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The court further considered that continued incarceration would serve no purpose at this stage, particularly since the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. There was no material suggesting risk of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and he appeared to have deep roots in society and stability. The court emphasized the foundational principle that bail is the norm and jail the exception, and that detention without justification would inflict undue hardship on the accused’s family.
In sum, the court granted bail, noting that allegations of misrepresentation or false inducement must be tested at trial and cannot serve as a basis for denying pretrial relief in the absence of compelling reasons. The order underscores that mere withdrawal from a proposed marriage after courtship, even with regret or disappointment, is not inherently criminal.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.