Allahabad HC seeks report from HOD(Astrology) at Lucknow Univ on victim being Manglik in alleged rape case

Read Time: 05 minutes


The accused claimed that the alleged victim is Manglik, and for this reason he could not marry her. 

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Head of the Department of Astrology at Lucknow University to file a report on whether the victim in an alleged rape case is Manglik or not. 

The single judge bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh asked the report to be submitted in a sealed cover within three weeks to the high court.

However, the Supreme Court stayed the order on Saturday. 

Justice Singh passed the order in a bail application filed by the accused in the case. Allegations against the accused were that he established physical relationships with the victim on a false promise of marriage.

Seeking relief before the high court, the counsel for the accused contended that the prosecutrix is Mangali, therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized and the same had been the reason that the marriage was refused by the accused. 

However, the contention was opposed by the counsel for the victim who claimed that victim was not Mangali and the accused had intentionally made a false promise to her. 

Taking note of the submission, the single judge bench opined that the issue of the victim being Manglik may be decided by the Head of Department (Astrology Department), Lucknow University.

Accordingly, the judge directed both the parties to produce the kundali (horoscope or birth chart) of the victim before the Head of Department (Astrology Department), Lucknow University within ten days from the date of the order and directed the HOD to produce the report within three weeks. 

In rape case, under Indian criminal law consent plays an important role. Therefore, when a man engages in sexual intercourse with a woman under the false pretext of marrying her, since the intention of promising marriage is to deceive the woman, therefore, it is treated as against her will.

However, a breach of promise to marry following the establishment of sexual relations does not, by itself, fall under the definition of rape as given under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

In a catena of cases, the apex court has distinguished between ‘false promise of marriage’ and ‘not fulfilling the promise of marriage’. 

Case Title: Gobind Rai @ Monu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko