Once Marriage Is Registered, Husband Can't Be Booked For Rape On Ground That He Did Not Fulfill Promise To Marry As Per Customs: Bombay HC

Once a marriage is legally registered and a couple establishes sexual relations, the husband cannot be booked for rape because he did not fulfill his 'promise to marry the wife as per religious customs', the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, held recently.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta quashed the FIR lodged against a man, who was accused by his 'legally married' wife, of rape, on the ground that though their marriage was 'registered' he had promised to marry her as per the religious customs and only on this promise, she had consented to establish sexual relationship. 

However, the man, who initially did not inform his family about their registered marriage, later on started avoiding the complainant on the ground that he found 'disturbing' chats between the wife and three different men and that she was cheating on him. 

The judges noted that the couple had 'registered' their marriage and then entered into a sexual relationship. This, the judges noted from the wife's contention, was done only because the husband promised to marry her as per religious customs. 

In their 17-page judgment, the judges explained that to establish a false promise to marry, it is essential for the accused to have the intention to deceive the complainant at the time of making such a promise. This deception, the judges emphasised, must persuade her to engage in sexual activities, vitiating her consent due to a misconception of fact.

"The complainant does not dispute that she was aware of the legally registered marriage between herself and the petitioner before they engaged in a sexual relationship. Furthermore, she does not claim that the petitioner misrepresented the status of their marriage registration. Therefore, it is sufficient to state that, given the existence of a legally recognised marriage known to both parties, it cannot be argued that the complainant's consent to engage in a sexual relationship was vitiated by a promise to marry based on religious customs," the bench held in the order passed on April 2. 

The bench noted from the complainant's affidavit, wherein she herself admitted that following the civil registration of their marriage, they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse on several occasions.

"This indicates that she was fully aware of the bond of matrimony existing between the parties on account of the civil registration of their marriage, and thus consciously decided to engage in consensual sexual interactions. Her consent cannot be interpreted as being based on a promise to marry according to religious customs', given that the parties were already legally married," the judges observed.

Further, the judges held that at the most, the petitioner's actions would constitute a breach of promise to marry as he refused to solemnise the marriage according to religious customs that too after discovering the complainant's alleged relationships with other men. 

"It is clear that the petitioner's promise to marry the complainant according to religious customs cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be interpreted as a false promise to marry, especially considering that the marriage between the parties had already been legally registered. At most, the petitioner's actions constitute a breach of promise to marry," the bench opined. 

The judges further explained that from the contents of the FIR in question, no offence is made out against the petitioner. even if the allegations are considered at their face value. 

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we conclude that the offenses of rape and cheating based on a false promise to marry are not established against the accused. It appears that the sexual relationship between the parties was consensual, given that they were legally married at the time they engaged in such a relationship," the bench observed, while quashing the FIR. 

Appearance:

Advocate Vibhav Amonkar appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Somnath Karpe represented the State. 

Advocate Shirin Naik represented the Complainant. 

Case Title: PV vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 999 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment