Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Delhi High Court said the material on record is strong enough and sufficient to also frame the charge against the man.
Terming it a “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court recently directed rape charges to be framed against a man who allegedly established a physical relationship with a married woman and promised not only her but her then-husband that he would marry her after their divorce is finalised.
In the January 3 order, the single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the acts committed by the man, at this stage, point that he had “prima facie” promised the woman he would get married to her and had stayed with her on this promise acting on which she had not only divorced her then-husband but had also entered into a sexual relationship with him to attract the rigours of Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Sharma said the material on record is strong enough and sufficient to also frame the charge against the man for the alleged offence of criminal intimidation as according to the FIR, he had refused to marry the woman and had abused her as well as threatened to kill her and her children.
The bench directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against the man under IPC sections 376 (rape)/506 (criminal intimidation) and proceed with the case as per law.
Justice Sharma observed in the order, “Strangely, as per admitted facts, Respondent No 2 had given (a) promise of marriage not only to the petitioner (woman) but also to her then legally married husband and her family that after divorce from him, he will not only marry her, but also look after the children born to her and her then legally married husband”.
Delhi High Court orders framing of rape charges against man in 'twin promise of marriage' case
Delhi High Court orders framing of rape charges against man in ‘twin promise of marriage’ case: Delhi High Court
The order was passed in the woman's plea who had challenged the trial court's June 8, 2023, order which had discharged the man from the offence of rape and criminal intimidation after observing that the consent of the woman was given after "active and reasoned deliberation”.
The Delhi High Court said the material on record is strong enough and sufficient to also frame the charge against the man.
Terming it a “twin promise of marriage”, the Delhi High Court recently directed rape charges to be framed against a man who allegedly established a physical relationship with a married woman and promised not only her but her then-husband that he would marry her after their divorce is finalised.
In the January 3 order, the single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the acts committed by the man, at this stage, point that he had “prima facie” promised the woman he would get married to her and had stayed with her on this promise acting on which she had not only divorced her then-husband but had also entered into a sexual relationship with him to attract the rigours of Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Sharma said the material on record is strong enough and sufficient to also frame the charge against the man for the alleged offence of criminal intimidation as according to the FIR, he had refused to marry the woman and had abused her as well as threatened to kill her and her children.
The bench directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against the man under IPC sections 376 (rape)/506 (criminal intimidation) and proceed with the case as per law.
Justice Sharma observed in the order, “Strangely, as per admitted facts, Respondent No 2 had given (a) promise of marriage not only to the petitioner (woman) but also to her then legally married husband and her family that after divorce from him, he will not only marry her, but also look after the children born to her and her then legally married husband”.
“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. It is to be proved during trial whether it was a breach of promise to marry or false promise to marry for the purpose of a sexual relationship and a mini-trial could not have been conducted to reach this decision at the stage of framing of the charge itself,” Justice Sharma said.
The order was passed in the woman’s plea who had challenged the trial court’s June 8, 2023, order which had discharged the man from the offence of rape and criminal intimidation after observing that the consent of the woman was given after “active and reasoned deliberation”. The lower court had also observed that the accused and the woman had been in a “sexual relationship out of love”, and consent for the sexual relationship was not given out of misconception of fact. The trial court had also observed that the case pertained to a breach of promise of marriage, rather than a false promise of marriage.
Justice Sharma also noted that a mangalsutra was also made with the initials of the man’s name for which he had paid. The HC said this would also reflect and point out his intention and promise to marry the petitioner. “Needless to say, in India, a mangalsutra for many women is not an ornament but a symbol of love, sacred union, and assurance for a lifetime of togetherness with their partner,” the HC said.
As per the case, the woman and the man got married to their respective partners in 2011 after their relationship did not culminate in marriage. Discord in the marital union of both parties with their respective partners had affected their lives and the woman and her then-husband had mutually decided to separate. Meanwhile, the woman and the man had again come into contact through social media in 2016 and revived their relationship by talking over the phone.
The woman said the man had allegedly assured her of his desire to marry her and gave a commitment. She alleged they mutually agreed that following her divorce from her husband, they would get married and he would take care of her children.
Justice Sharma also noted in the order that it was a “peculiar story” wherein the parties had not only represented and assured each other verbally that they would be divorcing their respective partners and getting married to each other, but they had also acted upon the promise given to each other to be together in life.
Justice Sharma said while it does not intend to engage in “moral policing and commenting on the conduct” of the parties regarding continuing their relationship with each other despite being lawfully married, it however also cannot ignore that their former partners were also aware of their relationship and their intention to get married to each other once they were divorced from them.
Case Title: Case Title: X v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 2024 Delhi HC
