Married Woman Cannot Claim Consent Was Taken On False Promise Of Marriage: MP High Court

Justice Maninder S Bhatti of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the accused, Veerendra Yadav, in a case involving allegations of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage.

The accused was represented by Advocate Shreyash Pandit, while the State was represented by Deputy Government Advocate Shailendra Mishra.

A rape case against the accused was quashed by the High Court, which held that a married woman cannot claim that her consent for a physical relationship was obtained under a false promise of marriage. The court emphasised that such consent does not fall under the framework of 'misconception of fact' as defined in the law.

The ruling was delivered recently by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in response to the complaint filed last year by the married woman.

The case was heard at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The complainant, a married woman residing in the state, had initially filed a complaint against the accused, who was also married.

The decision was based on an examination of the complainant's statements and legal precedents. It was observed that the complainant had willingly engaged in a physical relationship with the accused over three months. The FIR, when scrutinized, did not indicate that the accused exerted pressure on the complainant to marry him under a false promise.

The complainant, who was married to a driver and had two children, alleged that the accused, a neighbor, promised to marry her after divorcing his wife. However, he later refused, citing his inability to divorce his wife. The High Court, upon reviewing the details, found that there was no substantial evidence supporting the claim that consent was obtained under a false promise. Consequently, the case was dismissed to prevent unnecessary prolongation of legal proceedings.

The ruling reinforces the legal principle that a married woman's consent in such cases does not constitute a case of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. This decision aligns with past judgments of both the Supreme Court and High Courts in similar matters.