Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Orissa High Court recently observed that the assumption that a woman consents to intimacy only as a prelude to marriage is a vestige of patriarchal thought, not a principle of justice.

The bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi said that the law cannot lend itself to such a perversion of choice, where failed relationships become grounds for legal redress, and disappointment is cloaked in the language of deception.

Court was dealing with a petition filed by a man, a police officer, challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against him on the complaint of a woman who alleged that he engaged in a physical relationship with her under the false promise of marriage. Interestingly, the woman had filed a civil suit in 2023 before a family court seeking a declaration that she was the legally married wife of the man and also an injunction to prevent him from marrying anyone else. It was her claim that the man had married her in a temple but he did not appear for the marriage registration despite having been applied for the same. 

The woman claimed that after years of intimacy, the man refused to register their marriage, which, she argued, amounted to rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges against the man included offences under Sections 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

However, the man argued that the relationship between him and the woman was consensual and the woman, being a grown-up, mature, and intelligent woman, understood the consequences of her actions. He also submitted that the woman voluntarily maintained a relationship with him despite alleged objections from his family.

He also pointed out that the allegations in the FIR and the civil suit were contradictory as in the FIR the woman did not mention the alleged marriage at a temple but in the civil suit, she claimed to be his legally married wife.

The single judge bench, while delivering the judgment, underscored the evolving understanding of consent in law. "Within the framework of Section 375 of the IPC, consent is not a mere nod of acquiescence, nor the absence of resistance, but an active and reasoned understanding of the circumstances, the nature of the act, and its attendant consequences," court said.

In the case at hand, the bench opined that it was clear that the woman’s consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact. Court pointed out that when in 2012, the man and the woman entered into a relationship, both were competent, consenting adults, capable of making their own choices, of exercising their own will, and of shaping their own futures. 

It stressed that the relationship did not culminate in marriage may be a source of personal grievance, but the failure of love is not a crime, nor does the law transform disappointment into deception.

"The law does not extend its protection to every broken promise nor does it impose criminality upon every failed relationship," said the bench. 

It highlighted that the marriage is a choice, not inevitability. "It is a legal recognition, not a moral recompense for physical union," it added. 

Court stressed that marriage, in a patriarchal society, has been reduced to a mere performative act, reinforcing the notion that female sexuality must be bound to male commitment.

Court opined that the legal system, by criminalizing sex under a “false promise of marriage,” upholds this performative construct, one that assumes that women engage in sexual relationships only as a prelude to matrimony, rather than as autonomous agents of their own desires.

"In its pursuit of justice, the law must not become an instrument of moral policing," the bench said. 

Therefore, court held that the automatic criminalization of failed relationships under the guise of “false promise of marriage” must be scrutinized.

Regarding the present matter, court said that the intervention of the court was imperative to shield the criminal justice system from being wielded as an instrument of vengeance for the collapse of a personal relationship.

Court opined that the inconsistencies in the woman's narrative where in the FIR she charged the man with rape on the pretext of a false promise of marriage while in the civil suit, she asserted that she was already his legally wedded wife, cast a shadow upon the veracity of her allegations.

The fact that the relationship lasted nearly nine years clearly showed that it was voluntary, making the invocation of Section 376 of the IPC questionable, court held 

While stressing that the justice system is meant to address genuine crimes, not to serve as a battleground for failed relationships, court opined that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the man would constitute an abuse of process and accordingly, it quashed the proceedings initiated against him. 

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Munda versus State of Odisha & Anr