Delhi High Court Orders Framing Of Rape Charges Against Man Who Allegedly Gave 'False Promise Of Marriage' To Married Woman, Her Then Husband

Calling it a “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court has recently ordered framing of rape and criminal intimidation charges against a man who allegedly assured a married couple that after their divorce he will marry the wife and look after their children, but later refused to do so after entering into physical relationship with the said wife.

“It is thus a case of twin promise of marriage, i.e. to the complainant as well as her husband and family. Had he not promised or represented to her, she would not have entered into physical relations with him,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court added that it is to be proved during trial whether it was a breach of promise to marry or false promise to marry for the purpose of sexual relationship, adding that a mini trial could not have been conducted to reach the said decision at the stage of framing of charges.

“The acts of the respondent no. 2 (the man), thus, point out at this stage prima facie that he had given promise to the petitioner to get married to her and had stayed with her on this promise acting on which she had not only divorced her husband but had also indulged in sexual relationship with him to attract the rigors of Section 376 of IPC,” the court said.

Justice Sharma was dealing with a plea moved by the woman challenging a trial court order discharging the man for the offences under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, observing that the case pertained to breach of promise of marriage, rather than a false promise of marriage.

The woman as well as the man were married to their respective partners in 2011 after their relationship did not culminate into marriage. They both experienced mutual unhappiness in their marriages.

In 2016, the woman and her husband mutually decided to separate from each other. During the said time, she and the man came in contact on Facebook and started talking to each other and resumed conversation and their relationship.

It was the woman's case that the man had allegedly assured her of his desire to marry her and gave a commitment. She alleged that they both mutually agreed that following her divorce with her husband, they both will get married and her children will also be taken care of by him.

Setting aside the trial court order, Justice Sharma said that it is a very peculiar case where the parties had not only represented and assured each other verbally that they will be divorcing their respective partners and will be getting married to each other, but they had also acted upon the promise given to each other to be together in life.

“The record reveals that the petitioner herein had filed divorce proceedings in the year 2019 and was granted a mutual consent divorce with her husband in the year 2021. Strangely, her husband, and respondent no. 2 who wanted to get married to the petitioner herein, were also engaged in conversation, and the ex-husband of the petitioner was aware about their relationship,” the court said.

It added while the Court was not engaging in moral policing and commenting on the conduct of the parties regarding continuing their relationship with each other despite being lawfully married, it cannot ignore that their former partners were also aware about their relationship and their intention to get married to each other once they were divorced from them.

“Cases as the present one are not commercial cases or business transaction cases, where two plus two may lead to four or there could be straight jacket formula to decide such cases. The cases involving emotional situations where the parties of the story have taken decisions and acted upon them on the basis of peculiar circumstances of their lives, have to be adjudged and adjudicated according to their own peculiarity and situational dissection of facts,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court observed that Mangalsutra was also prepared and bought by the man in the anticipation of his marriage with the woman.

It added that there was sufficient material on record before the trial court to give rise to strong suspicion against the man that he had assured and gave promise to marry to the woman, due to which she entered into sexual relationship with him.

“In view thereof, the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned Sessions Court by virtue of which the respondent no. 2 was discharged in the present case, is set aside. The learned Sessions Court is directed to frame charge against respondent no. 2 under Sections 376/506 of IPC proceed with the case as per law,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Samridhi Arora, Ms. Sanjana and Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State; Mr. Shekhar, Advocate for R-2