‘Tricking a girl into having sex on the promise of marriage, then refusing to tie the knot amounts to rape’
NEW DELHI: Holding that having sex with a girl on the promise of marriage and later refusing to tie the knot on flimsy grounds amounts to rape, the Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed an anticipatory bail application by a boy who had allegedly tricked a girl into having sex with him on the promise of marriage and later refused to fulfil it on the ground that she had hidden her real gotra (lineage) from him.
Ruling that the present case falls in the category of a rape case, Justice V. K. Jain said: “If I take the view that sexual intercourse with a girl, in the facts and circumstances such as in the present case, does not amount to rape, it will result in unscrupulous and mischievous persons taking undue advantage of innocent girls.”
In the instant case, the boy had agreed to marry the girl after the two families had met and given their nod to the marriage proposal. The proposal was formalised by the two families at a roka (engagement) ceremony, after the boy already had sexual intercourse with the girl.
Further clarifying the legal position on such cases, Justice Jain said: “A case where the girl agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the boy and not solely on account of the misrepresentations made to her by the boy or a case where a boy, on account of circumstances, which he could not have foreseen or which are beyond his control, does not marry her despite having all good intention to do so, has to be treated differently from a case such as the present one.”
“The petitioner from very inception had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix to whom he was a complete stranger before he met her to consider the proposal for marriage with her,” Justice Jain said commenting on the intention of the boy.
Counsel for the petitioner had argued that it was not a rape case. Quoting a Supreme Court judgment, counsel submitted that having sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage did not constitute rape.
Counsel for the prosecution, Pawan Bahal, opposed it saying that it was a clear-cut case of rape.