Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Charge On False Promise To Marry But Orders Accused To Maintain Child Born From 'Consensual' Relationship

The Karnataka High Court recently obliterated rape charges levelled against a man but directed him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to the child born out of the consensual relationship which he had with the lady, whom he allegedly lured on the promise of marriage.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by one Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani and quashed the charges of rape under Section 376 IPC, but continued proceedings against him under sections 506, 417 and 420 of the Code. It said,

“In the peculiar facts of this case, as it is found that the petitioner is the biological father of the child, he cannot now show a hands off to the responsibility of the child which is born to him albeit, till the conclusion of the trial. I therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance to the child at Rs.10,000 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.”

As per factual matrix of the case, the parties were in a romantic relationship but the Complainant was subsequently married to another man. As her marital life floundered, complainant alleged the petitioner lured her in continuing the relationship that they had earlier. She alleged that on petitioner's promise to marry her, they engaged in a physical relationship and had a child. However, the petitioner wanted to marry someone else.

The bench on going through the records said consensual acts cannot be termed as 'rape'. However, the Court refused to obliterate Cheating charge against the Petitioner. It said the petitioner has undoubtedly lured the complainant taking advantage of the strained relationship between the complainant and her husband.

“In the light of the analysis of the DNA of the child, the mother and the petitioner, being positive towards the fact that the biological parents being the petitioner and the complainant, the allegations by the complainant would stand to reason...Though sexual acts on promise of marriage would not attract Section 376 of the IPC or as held by the co-ordinate benches of this Court, the offence of cheating in the case at hand is distinguishable without much ado though consensual acts would not amount to a rape,” Court added.

Court held even the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC would be met, as the allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner threatened the complainant throughout four years.

Appearance: Advocate K.L.Patil for Petitioner.

HCGP V.S.Kalasurmath for R1.

Advocate Archana A Magadum for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1

Case Title: Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 100721 of 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Order