One Year Enough To Determine If Promise Of Marriage Is Fake: MP Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that a year’s period is enough for a "prudent" woman to realise whether a man’s promise to marry her was fake from its inception or whether it was merely a breach of a genuine promise.

Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal relied on several judgements of the Supreme Court to point out that there was a clear difference between a mere breach of promise and making a fake promise to marry. A genuine breach of the promise to marry was not considered punishable under the law.

MP Court On Marriage Promise

The court explained that only a false promise to marry with the intention to deceive a woman would be considered a punishable act, while a mere breach of a promise could not be considered a false promise.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed this while quashing a rape case filed against a man for being in a sexual relationship with a woman on a false promise to marry her.

The court found in this case that the woman had been in a relationship with the accused for a long time, and she herself had visited him at his residence. The court noted that more than a year’s time was sufficient for a woman to realise whether the man’s promise to marry was genuine or fake.

The court also questioned that woman as to why she continued staying in the relationship if the accused had not agreed to her request for marriage until she filed the FIR against him. Hence, it was clear that, at the most, this case could be said to be a breach of promise.

According to the FIR, the accused had proposed to marry the woman in 2020 and had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage. She claimed later that when she asked him for marriage, he ignored her. Despite this, she continued to talk to him over the phone and later accused him of assaulting her.

Based on the woman’s FIR, the accused was charged with rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused subsequently moved to the High Court to challenge the FIR.

The accused’s lawyer argued that the woman filed the FIR with malicious intent and noted the significant delay. He also noted that she was a mature woman with three children and had willingly engaged in a physical relationship with the man.

The woman, on the other hand, countered that there was no consent if the woman had continued to have a physical relationship with a man based on his promise to marry her.

The court considered the submissions of both parties and concluded that prosecuting the accused for rape would be an abuse of the legal process. Holding that in this case, it was only a breach of promise to marry, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.

Suggested Reading: MP Court Asks Centre To Lower Age Of Consent, But Is 16 Mature Enough?