The Supreme Court Today (April 2) raised concern over rising rape cases based on failed marriage promises, saying not all breakups amount to crime. The Court stressed changing social values and urged a balanced legal view.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, showed concern about the increasing number of rape cases being filed by women after relationships end, especially where the woman claims that she was promised marriage but later the man refused to marry her.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal said that nowadays, just because a romantic relationship breaks or ends badly, it should not always be turned into a legal rape case by the woman involved.
The Court pointed out that society is changing, and moral values of young people today are also different.
The Supreme Court was hearing a case where a man had requested the Court to cancel a rape case filed against him by a woman who was once engaged to him. The woman claimed that the man had physical relations with her only because he promised to marry her, but later he broke the promise.
The Court told the woman,
“If you were so gullible you would not be before us. You were a major. It cannot be that you were hoodwinked to believe that you will get married etc. With due respect, today the concept of morality, virtues is different with younger lot. If we agree with you, then any relation between boy and girl in college etc will become punishable. Suppose they love each other and girl resisted and boy says I will marry you next week and then he does not, so again offence,”
-the Court said.
The judges also commented that such legal complaints might be due to old-fashioned thinking, where only the man is blamed.
“The conservative mind is at play because the man is blamed here. There is lacunae in our system. At times the girl launches 5 cases against her in laws. Whatever observation you want from us or to set aside High Court observation…that’s okay.. ultimately you are the victim,”
-the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, who was speaking on behalf of the woman, argued that this was not just a normal love relationship that failed. She said that this case was about an arranged marriage, and the consent given by the woman was not real or free.
“This is not a romantic relationship which went sour. This is not a romantic relationship. This was arranged. The consent in the present case cannot be said to be free consent, Milord the concept of consent is important. Her engagement breaking will be a social taboo. The consent here is not free consent. She thinks that if she does not please him he may not marry her. They were engaged. It may be casual sex for him but not for the woman,”
-Divan told the Court.
To this, the Court replied,
“What difference does it make? Tomorrow disregarding whether married or not, marital rape can be alleged. The only fact is that marriage did not happen.”
The Court also noted that since the woman had hired such a well-known and senior lawyer like Madhavi Divan, it is difficult to believe that she was too naïve or innocent.
“Engaging such a senior lawyer.. we cannot say the girl is so gullible,”
-Justice Sundresh observed.
He also said that the Court must look at the whole matter fairly and not just from the side of the woman. He shared a personal view too, as a father.
“We cannot look at it from only one lens. We have no attachment to one gender. I also have a daughter and if she is also in this position I need to look it at a broader perspective. Now see (in) this case, can conviction be secured here with such weak material,”
-Justice Sundresh asked.
Justice Bindal added that the woman had accepted the relationship with the understanding that it could end at some point.
“You did accept the relationship with the option that it can be broken off some day,”
-he said.
Divan replied that women often do not have equal power in such relationships, and in this particular case, the woman’s father was seriously ill and wanted her to get married.
“Woman usually did not have the bargaining power. Her father had cancer and he wanted her married. The woman only wanted to please the man,”
-she told the Court.
During the hearing, Justice Sundresh also made an important comment about gender equality in marriage laws. He suggested that the rule in the Hindu Marriage Act that allows a husband to force his wife to stay with him (restitution of conjugal rights) should also be reconsidered.
“I firmly believe that there should be gender parity under Hindu Marriage Act (restitution of conjugal rights). I think how can (there be) norm etc forcing the woman to stay with the man,”
-he said.
After listening to both sides, the Supreme Court said that it will look into the man’s appeal seriously and will examine the case in detail.
Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra represented the accused man in the Court.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
