Married woman can’t claim consent was taken on false promise to marry: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Post By 24law
February 22, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a married woman cannot claim that her consent for physical relations was taken under a false promise of marriage. Justice Maninder S Bhatti quashed a rape case against a man booked on the complaint of a married woman last year.

Case Background

The case originated when a married woman, who was the complainant, alleged that the accused had promised to marry her after divorcing his own wife, leading to the establishment of a physical relationship between them. However, when the accused later refused to marry her, she lodged a complaint, accusing him of rape under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant was already married to a driver and had two children. The accused was also a married man residing in the same neighborhood. They developed a friendship over three months, during which he allegedly made the promise of marriage, resulting in their intimate relationship.

Court’s Observations and Judgment

The High Court examined the complainant’s statement and found that she was in a consensual relationship with the accused, meeting him whenever her husband was away. The Court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) did not contain any clear allegations that the accused had coerced the complainant into marriage under a false pretense.

Justice Maninder S Bhatti, while relying on past Supreme Court rulings, stated: “The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court postulate that when the prosecutrix is married lady, and therefore, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of the consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of the fact.’”

Precedents Cited

The Court referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments in similar cases, including:

Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293] – The Supreme Court held that an inducement for marriage is understandable only if the promise is made to an unmarried person. Since the prosecutrix was already married at the time of the alleged offense, she could not claim that her consent was based on a misconception of fact.

Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 15 SCC 385] – The Supreme Court ruled that a married woman, who was in a relationship for years and even had a child with the accused, could not later claim that she was misled into the relationship by a false promise of marriage.

XXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2024) 3 SCC 496] – The Court observed that when a woman is married and engages in a relationship, her consent cannot be said to have been obtained under a false promise of marriage.

Abhishek Arjariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No. 31926/2019) – The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if a married woman consents to a relationship, the promise of marriage does not hold the same weight as it would in the case of an unmarried woman.

Quashing the Case

After reviewing the complainant’s FIR and statements, the High Court found that the allegations did not constitute an offense under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The judgment stated: “In such a case, the FIR is required to be nipped in the bud, as the same would entail in the long drawn process of conduct of trial whereas the allegations levelled in the FIR on their face value, do not indicate the commission of offense under the aforesaid sections.” Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the accused.