Man having consensual sex with woman outside marriage 'adultery' but not rape on false promise: Indian HC

Punjab and Haryana High Court rules married woman cannot accuse man of rape over false marriage promise

India’s Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that if a married woman engages in sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, she cannot accuse that man of rape on the grounds of a false promise of marriage.

In a rape case involving a married woman, the court acquitted the accused.

The complainant claimed she entered the relationship based on a promise of marriage.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said in her verdict, “When a fully matured married woman, consents to sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues indulging in such activity, it is merely an act of promiscuity, immorality and reckless disregard of the institution of marriage, not an act of inducement by misconception of fact.

“Section 90 of IPC cannot be applied in any such case to pardon the act of a woman and the criminal liability on another."

The Court said that an inducement for marriage is understandable if the same is made to an unmarried woman.

Although the woman claimed she was unhappy in her marriage and was in the process of divorcing her husband, who worked in the armed forces, the court rejected this claim as false.

"This claim of the prosecutrix is false on the face of it, given her admission that she was residing with her in-laws and had never launched any sort of litigation against her husband including divorce petition," said the court.

In the verdict issued on Aug 20, the court said the woman was an adult, mother of two children, and ten years older than the accused. She was sufficiently mature to understand the consequences of engaging in “immoral acts” while still married.

The court noted that the claim of 55-60 sexual encounters with the accused between 2012 and 2013 lacks clarity due to absence of dates and other important details. The complainant herself admitted these relations took place at her in-laws’ house.

"Clearly, the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the appellant for a period of more than two years during which period, she remained married to her husband. In the fact situation, her claim that appellant had physical relations with her and committed rape upon her on the assurance that he would marry her is per se false and unacceptable," the bench opined.

The court also ruled that it is impossible for the accused to have induced the complainant, who lived with her in-laws and children, into an extramarital relationship through false marriage promises.

Even if these claims were accepted verbally, it is unbelievable that a legally married woman can be induced into sexual relations by a marriage promise. Such a promise, even if made, is legally invalid and against societal morals, the court said.

It added that the case reflected a consensual relationship that later turned bitter, and that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of revenge.