Kashish Jain
Recently, the Orissa High Court emphasized the need to amend legislation to clearly define what can constitute sexual intercourse on the pretext of false promise of marriage.
The single-judge bench observed that presently, the law on the matter of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage lacks clarity when it comes to the conviction of the accused. The bench comprised Judge SK Panigrahi. Judge Panigrahi, while rejecting the bail petition concerned, stated, “The law on this matter lacks clarity for the conviction of the accused”.
He has also stated, “The law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous. However, the plight of the victim and the probability of the accused tarnishing the dignity of the victim and her family need to be looked at while deliberating on the question of bail.”
In the concerned case, the petitioner allegedly had a physical relationship with a woman on the pretext of marriage. He managed to impregnate her twice, aborted the child by medicating her, and then refused to marry her.
When her marriage was arranged with someone else, the accused created a fake account in her name, used a caption declaring her of bad character, and uploaded her photos. The accused was arrested and sent to jail.
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code specifically provides the circumstances under which consent amounts to no consent. However, consent for sexual acts on the pretext of marriage is not one of those mentioned in the section. This has resulted in the automatic extension of provisions under Section 90 of IPC determining the effects of the consent under section 375 and
this according to Judge Panigrahi deserves serious reconsideration.
He also said, “A perusal of the FIR and other documents available in the present case prima facie shows that there are very specific allegations against the petitioner. It is not, as if, the allegations are casual and sweeping against the accused generally.”
The High Court stated, “The possibility of coercion of victim’s family, repetition of similar type of offense and fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted bail.”
The High Court also made a point to state that rape laws should not be used to regulate intimate relationships especially in the cases where women enter into such relationships by choice.
The High Court also pointed out that in the socially disadvantaged, poor segments of the society and rural areas, men lure women to sex on the false promises of marriage and dump them as soon as the women involved get pregnant.
In its order, the High Court concluded, “The rape law often fails to capture their plight. The law has well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent.”