Man cannot cite age gap as defence in rape on promise to marry cases: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that in cases of rape on false promise of marriage, the accused cannot take the defence that the victim-woman should have foreseen his future refusal to marry due to their age difference..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while refusing to quash a case against a man accused of raping an older woman on false promise of marriage.The Court said that it was established that the accused from the very inception had no intention to marry the victim but induced her into a physical relationship by falsely promising marriage."Given these circumstances, the allegations against the petitioner necessitate a full trial, as they disclose a prima facie case of sexual exploitation under false assurances, making the quashing of the FIR unwarranted at this stage," the Court ruled..As per the woman, the accused, who was her colleague, had started pursuing her in 2017. He proposed her for marriage and assured her of a future together. On the basis of this assurance, the woman then engaged in physical relations with the man and even extended him financial benefit of over ₹4-5 lakhs. However, the man later refused to marry her and return the money. She then filed a criminal case in 2021.Challenging the FIR against him, the counsel representing the accused argued it was a consensual relationship and that the victim was "obsessed" with accused and unilaterally desired marriage..However, the Court called the argument contradictory as it took note of the counsel's submission that the couple met each other's families and had an understanding that they would marry.Further, it rejected the contention that since the victim was elder to the accused, she should have been aware that the marriage may not be possible.“The argument that the victim should have realized the difficulties in marriage due to being elder to the petitioner is legally untenable and devoid of merit. The petitioner, despite being fully aware of the age difference, actively pursued the relationship, gave assurances of marriage, and induced the victim to make financial and emotional commitments. The burden cannot be unfairly shifted onto the victim to have foreseen the petitioner's future refusal to marry when he himself assured her of a shared future,” the Court said..The Court added that such argument was based on a patriarchal mindset.“Further, the submission that a woman must assume additional responsibility and foresee marriage-related difficulties solely because she is elder to her partner is based on a patriarchal and legally flawed premise.”.On the submission that she was obsessed with him, the Court said such argument was reflective of misogyny. “A woman’s decision to engage in a relationship based on the man’s specific promises cannot be dismissed as mere obsession when the man later reneges on his commitment. Such an argument not only lacks legal standing but also reflects a misogynistic perspective that seeks to impose an unreasonable burden on the victim while absolving the petitioner of accountability for his own assurances," the Court stated..Consequently, the plea was dismissed. .Advocates Kushal Kumar, Akash Deep Gupta and Rajan Malhotra appeared for the accused-man.Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the State. [Read judgment]