DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance

Number of Documents : 1





ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2221 of 2016J. Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKARAkshay Manoj Jaisinghani vs The State of MaharastraIPC 376, 504, 506

Every Breach Of Promise To Marry Cannot Amount To Rape : (1) This is an unfortunate but routine case of a boy and girl having affair, indulging into sexual relationship and ultimately ending into a breakup. Considering the facts of the case, undoubtedly, the complainant and the applicant/accused had consensual sexual relationship and were in love with each other.

(2) In a case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse is forcible and without consent of the woman. However, the consent obtained by fraud amounts to no consent and therefore, if there is sexual intercourse with consent but obtained by fraud, it amounts to rape. (3) Previously, in number of such matters, this Court has taken a specific view and has held that when a woman is major and educated and depending on facts on the case, she is supposed to be fully aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man before marriage. In the event of consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There should be some material on record to believe prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was ready to have sexual intercourse with him. Promise to marry cannot be said to be an inducement in these types of cases.

(4) This Court has already held in the case of Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane vs. State of Maharashtra1 that to satisfy the sexual urge is a free decision of every major individual irrespective of gender. Thus, promise to marry in any manner, cannot be a condition precedent to have sex. However, the behavioural pattern and psyche of Indian society has to be taken into account while dealing with this issue.