During a hearing in a rape-on-promise-to-marry case between a Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Supreme Court made a witty remark saying the couple “should have matched horoscopes before entering the relationship.”
New Delhi: In a case involving serious allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made a light-hearted observation that quickly caught everyone’s attention.
The Court said that the accused man “should have checked the horoscope before entering into the relationship,” instead of later refusing to marry the woman due to a horoscope mismatch.
The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, was hearing a plea filed by the woman challenging the Patna High Court’s 2024 order that had quashed her case.
During the hearing, the bench asked the complainant’s lawyer about the basis of the First Information Report (FIR). The counsel replied that the man had entered into a sexual relationship with her on the assurance of marriage.
Justice Pardiwala then sought to confirm the allegation, asking,
“You maintained the relationship on the basis of his assurance? That’s your case?”
The lawyer explained that the accused had himself initiated the relationship but later backed out of the promise to marry. When the bench asked why he had done so, the counsel replied,
“Because the horoscopes did not match.”
At this point, Justice Pardiwala smiled and made a remark that lightened the tense courtroom atmosphere.
“Well, that’s a very important question. If stars don’t match, how will you lead a good marital life? So before entering into the relationship you should have got the horoscopes matched na. Only at the time of marriage you consulted an astrologer,”
the judge said, drawing laughter in the courtroom.
In the case, the accused man is a Superintendent of Police, while the complainant woman is a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Both had worked together in the same district back in 2014.
As the hearing continued, the bench asked if there had been any earlier efforts to settle the matter. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the accused officer, informed the Court that during earlier proceedings, the parties had been advised to explore a settlement.
However, the complainant’s proposed settlement amount was far beyond his client’s means.
“Five crores is beyond my capacity. I am now married. I have two kids,”
the senior advocate said on behalf of his client.
Justice Viswanathan observed that the amount indeed seemed quite high. The complainant’s counsel, however, maintained that her client had been forced into the relationship.
But the bench was not fully convinced by this argument. Justice Pardiwala remarked,
“Who would believe this? You are a DSP.”
The complainant’s lawyer then clarified that the accused, being her superior officer at the time, had pursued her persistently and initiated communication through messages.
The bench then inquired about their ages. It was submitted that the complainant is over 40 years old, while the accused is about seven years younger.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court expressed that continued legal confrontation would not benefit either party. The judges suggested that it would be more appropriate to resolve the matter amicably through mediation.
The bench observed,
“Whatever might have happened in the past, in the peculiar facts of this case, we believe that fighting with each other is not going to be in the interest of the parties,”
To facilitate this process, the Court appointed Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, as mediator. Both parties have been directed to contact her and work out the modalities for mediation.
The Supreme Court’s remark about checking horoscopes before entering a relationship has since gained attention for its mix of humor and insight in an otherwise serious hearing, reflecting how the bench balanced empathy with practicality while handling a sensitive matter.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Rape
