A criminal prosecution cannot become a “strong-arm tactic” to force someone to marry, the Supreme Court has held, while adding that even an undertaking to marry under the threat of criminal prosecution cannot be used to establish a promise to marry.
The court stressed that for a consensual sexual relationship to constitute an offence on the ground that it was based on a promise to marry, there must be adequate evidence to show that, at the very beginning, the accused had no intention whatsoever of honouring the promise. The court noted that the couple subsequently had a physical relationship, which continued for about three years. The court observed that the undertaking would have been given under the threat of criminal prosecution and was, in any event, unenforceable.
The relationship took place with the knowledge of both parties, and, according to the judgment, the woman would inform the appellant when her mother was away from home. The bench said such an undertaking could not, by itself, be treated as a promise to marry, particularly since it was made after the couple had been in a relationship for three years. The court cautioned against loosely invoking the concept of consent obtained through “fear or misconception” to criminalise an admittedly consensual relationship.
The court examined an undertaking allegedly given by the man before the Mahila Thana Counselling Centre, Bilaspur, to marry the woman.
