Supreme Court Says Consensual Relationship With Knowledge Of Marriage Not Rape, Quashes Case Against Ex-Judge

In its ruling, the Court overturned the Calcutta High Court’s February 23, 2024, decision, which had denied the appellant’s request for discharge. The judgment marks a significant legal precedent in cases involving consensual relationships and allegations of false promises.

Here’s a closer look at the case and its implications.

Supreme Court Says Consensual Relationship with Knowledge Of Marriage Not Rape

The Supreme Court on Monday raised concerns over the increasing trend of initiating criminal proceedings when relationships deteriorate, emphasising that not every consensual relationship with the possibility of marriage can be construed as one entered under a false pretext of marriage.

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that the relationship in question was consensual, noting that the woman was fully aware that the man was already married when it began. The Court observed that she was conscious of the consequences of her actions and initiated criminal proceedings only after the relationship soured.

"We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out," the judgment stated, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The ruling sets a significant precedent in cases involving allegations of false promises of marriage, reinforcing the distinction between consensual relationships and cases of deception.

Don't Miss:Supreme Court Slams Misogynistic Language In Judgments, Calls for Respecting Women's Rights

What Is The Case About?

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a February 2024 Calcutta High Court order that had refused to discharge the accused from a case dating back to 2015.

The complainant alleged that she met the appellant, then a judge in Haldia during her matrimonial case. She claimed that he had promised to marry her, provided financial support, and engaged in a physical relationship with her over time. However, after her divorce was finalised, he allegedly began distancing himself and eventually cut all contact.

The Supreme Court, however, pointed out that the complainant was fully aware of the man's personal and professional background, including the fact that he was separated but still legally married.

"Even if we take the complainant’s case at face value or consider that the relationship was based on an offer of marriage, she cannot plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’. From the very beginning, she knew and understood that the appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated. With full awareness of the circumstances, actions, and consequences, she made a conscious decision to sustain a relationship with him," the judgment, authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, stated, as per Bar And Bench.

Don't Miss:Karnataka Approves ‘Right To Die With Dignity’ Order: What Is it, Understanding Its Ethical Concerns, Patient Rights, And More

The ruling reinforces the legal distinction between consensual relationships and cases where deception is used to induce a physical relationship, clarifying that not every failed relationship can be construed as a criminal offense.

Keep reading Herzindagi for more such stories.

Credits: Freepik