New Delhi: Calling it a case of “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court earlier this month ordered rape charges to be framed against a Canadian resident who allegedly induced a formerly married woman to divorce her husband and eventually enter into a sexual relationship with him on the promise of marriage.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court was hearing the woman’s petition against a lower court ruling discharging the accused, identified by the court only as “Mr Singh”, of rape and criminal intimidation (Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code). The order was issued on 2 January and uploaded on the court’s website on 13 January.
In its ruling, the court said Singh and the appellant knew each other before they married two different people in 2011. Unhappy in their respective marriages, the two reconnected on social media in 2016 and eventually divorced their spouses, the order said.
The Delhi High Court said that the respondent, Mr. Singh, had not only promised the appellant that he would marry her but also conveyed this intention to her former husband. He later reneged on his promise, the order said.
“It is thus a case of twin promise of marriage, i.e. to the complainant as well as her husband and family. Had he not promised or represented to her, she would not have entered into physical relations with him,” Justice Sharma said.
In her complaint before the police in Ghaziabad’s Indirapuram, the appellant had claimed that Singh had also threatened to kill her, her former spouse, the couple’s children, and her brother-in-law.
In June 2023, the additional sessions judge at New Delhi’s Patiala House Court Complex discharged the accused of both charges, noting that it was a case of “reasoned deliberation” and that the alleged incidents amounted to a “breach of promise of marriage, rather than a false promise of marriage”.
The appellant then approached the high court.
Also Read: ‘Sedated & raped at 5-star hotel after seminar’ — NRI woman’s police complaint against CEO
‘Spouses aware of promise to marry’
In her petition before the court, the appellant said her consent for sex was taken under a “false pretext of marriage”, submitting multiple text messages and call records as evidence.
She argued that she had only agreed to divorce her ex-husband on the promise of matrimony. The respondent, she claimed, even bought her a mangalsutra — a black-beaded necklace or thread usually worn by Hindu women as a symbol of marriage.
However, the respondent argued that the sexual relationship was consensual, and since the appellant had made an informed choice, the decision of the lower court must be upheld.
In its order, the HC noted that there was sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the respondent had promised to marry the appellant and it was only based on such promise that divorce proceedings were initiated against their partners.
For this, the court referred to text conversations and phone recordings between the parties.
Such cases, according to the HC order, involve “emotional situations” and must be adjudged by facts, and, therefore, cannot be treated like business or commercial cases.
The ruling goes on to say that while the court doesn’t intend to do moral policing, it could not ignore the fact that the exes of both parties were aware of their intention to marry each other.
“Indeed, the present case portrays a very peculiar story, where the parties concerned had not only represented and assured each other verbally that they will be divorcing their respective partners and will be getting married to each other, but they had also acted upon the promise given to each other to be together in life,” the court order said. “Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge (sic) against respondent no. 2 [accused] under Sections 376 [rape] /506 [criminal intimidation] of IPC.”
Akshat Jain is a student of the National Law University, Delhi, and an intern with ThePrint.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)