The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that required a rape accused’s wife, who lives and works in the US, to remain in India. The Court held that imposing conditions on a non-party violates procedure and accepted the accused’s undertaking to attend hearings via video-conferencing.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court which had put a condition that the wife of a software engineer must stay in India if he wanted to travel abroad for a job.
The man is accused in a rape case where the allegation is that he had physical relations with a woman on a false promise of marriage.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe accepted the undertaking given by the accused engineer that he will attend all court hearings through video-conferencing. He also assured the Court that he will personally appear before the trial court whenever the court directs him to do so.
During the hearing, Advocate Ashwani Dubey, appearing for the engineer, clearly told the Supreme Court that the wife of his client is neither an accused nor a party in the criminal case.
He also informed the Court that on the date when the High Court passed the order, the wife was not even in India, as she was working in the United States.
After considering the submissions and the undertaking given by the accused, the Supreme Court observed:
“In the light of the undertaking given by the appellant, stating that he would attend every hearing in Sessions Case No.12 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Court), Ajmer, Rajasthan, through video-conferencing and also giving an assurance that he would be physically present before the trial court whenever so directed, we find no ground to alter the order dated August 8, 2025, passed by this court, which has been duly complied with.
The Bench said,
The said order is made absolute, subject to the undertaking given by the appellant,”
Earlier, on August 8, the Supreme Court had stayed the Rajasthan High Court’s order and allowed the man to travel abroad, subject to depositing a surety amount of Rs 2 lakh.
In his plea before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that the High Court acted with “procedural impropriety” by passing an order against his wife without even hearing her or making her a party to the case. It was pointed out that she was employed in the US and had no connection with the criminal proceedings.
The plea further stated that the High Court’s direction was “erroneous” and violated the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It was also argued that the order suffered from serious procedural irregularity and legal perversity because it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person who was directly affected.
The plea stated:
“The petitioner is an Indian passport holder and an Indian citizen and not the citizen of any other country and he will be under the control of the Consulate General in the US and there are no chances of his absconding as he is willing to go abroad to earn his livelihood on a work visa and therefore, there is no question of his absconding,”.
The Supreme Court was also informed that the accused would be travelling abroad only for a specific period. He was willing to give a sworn statement that he would remain available for the trial whenever the court requires his presence.
The plea further stated:
“There is no question of a delay in the trial and also, there is no question of his absconding,”.
The rape case against the man was registered at the Christianganj police station in Ajmer. According to the complaint, the accused met the woman through a matrimonial website. It was alleged that he stayed in a close relationship with her for about four years by promising to marry her, but later refused.
The case is registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the offence of
“sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.”.
The provision explains deceitful means to include a
“false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marrying after suppressing identity”.
When the accused feared arrest, he approached the court seeking anticipatory bail, which was granted to him. After that, he filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to go abroad for employment. The trial court rejected his request.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | CJI Gavai: “For Me Constitution Is Supreme, Not Parliament Or Judiciary”
He then challenged this decision before the Rajasthan High Court. While the High Court allowed him to travel abroad, it imposed the condition that his wife must remain in India during his absence.
This condition has now been struck down by the Supreme Court, holding that such a direction against a non-party was unjustified and illegal.
