Karnataka High Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court has made an important observation during the hearing of a rape case. The court clarified that the law does not consider heartbreak as a crime. Along with this, the Court also said that if a person refuses to marry after a consensual relationship, then it cannot be considered as rape. According to a report, the case was on a plea by a man who had sought quashing of the FIR lodged against him by a woman under sections 69 and 115(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 2023. The woman had alleged that the man had sexual relations with her by falsely promising marriage.
Court Comments
Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “When two adults have consensual physical relations for a prolonged period, and later the man refuses to marry, it cannot amount to rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The court also said in its order that on reading the complaint there is no mention of rape, fraud or coercion. The complaint details a two-year live-in relationship, a shared domestic life and a consensual relationship. The court said that the two spent two years together, and what happened thereafter was not a case of violence, but an allegation of betrayal. Therefore, this is not a case of physical relationship by being deceived from the beginning. It is an established legal principle that heartbreak is not a crime.
Importance of marriage promise
Justice M. Nagaprasanna also said that a promise of marriage would be considered false if it is proved that it was merely an attempt to deceive, with no intention of fulfiling. The Court said that change of heart, lack of coordination, family opposition, or hesitation in marriage cannot be considered as criminal intention at the beginning of the relationship.
The court, while dismissing the complaint against the petitioner, said that the criminal justice system should not be misused in case of breakdown of relationship. The petitioner and the woman met in Ireland, where both were studying. Later their friendship turned into love and they decided to be in a live-in relationship.
woman’s statement
The woman said in the FIR that they were in a live-in relationship for a long time and during this time they also had physical relations. The woman was already married and had a child. However, she told that divorce proceedings were already going on with her husband. Later, her relationship with the petitioner deteriorated and on her return to India she filed a case against him for having an affair with her by false promise of marriage.
Comments are closed.