No Rape Case If Woman In Subsisting Marriage Has Relations On Promise Of Marriage: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-01

Covering Law & Justice.

No Rape Charge if Married Woman Consents to Relations on Promise of Future Marriage: Allahabad High Court

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, holding that a man cannot be prosecuted for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for having a physical relationship with an already married woman on the promise of a future marriage. The court reasoned that since a married woman cannot legally enter into another marriage, her consent to the relationship cannot be considered to be based on a misconception of fact.

Upholding a trial court's decision to discharge two men from charges of rape and causing miscarriage, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, "Since the victim was already married, a promise of marriage to her could not have been a valid basis for her to consent to a physical relationship. The accused could not have legally married her, and thus, his failure to do so does not constitute an illegality for which he can be prosecuted."

The bench dismissed the application filed by the victim, Jyoti Ravat, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), challenging the trial court's order.

Background of the Case

The applicant, Jyoti Ravat, had filed an FIR on November 8, 2023, alleging that she was in a relationship with the accused (Opposite Party No. 2) for seven years. She claimed that he engaged in physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage, leading to a pregnancy which was subsequently terminated by him.

According to the applicant, she was married to another man in 2020 but later separated and returned to her maternal home. She alleged that at the accused's insistence, she divorced her husband, only for the accused to later refuse to marry her after causing a second abortion.

Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 376 (Rape), 313 (Causing miscarriage without woman's consent), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. However, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow, in an order dated June 2, 2025, discharged the accused from the grave charges of rape (S.376) and causing miscarriage (S.313), finding that a prima facie case was only made out for lesser offences. The applicant challenged this discharge order in the High Court.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously examined the facts and legal precedents to arrive at its decision. Justice Vidyarthi noted several key points from the victim's own statements:

• The relationship had been ongoing for seven years.
• The victim married another person in 2020, which the court interpreted as a prima facie indication that she herself had backed out of any commitment to the accused.
• There was no evidence on record to prove that she had legally divorced her husband.

The court emphasized that a married woman is legally incapable of entering into a second marriage. Therefore, the very premise of her consent being vitiated by a false promise of marriage was untenable.

"In the present case, the victim was already married. In such a situation, her claim that she established a physical relationship with the accused on the promise of marriage cannot be accepted, because a married woman cannot enter into a second marriage," the judgment stated.

The Court referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) , which distinguish between a "breach of promise" and a "false promise made with malicious intent from the outset." The High Court concluded that these precedents did not apply to the current facts, as the legal impediment of an existing marriage fundamentally altered the nature of the promise.

The court further noted that while the relationship might have constituted an offence of adultery under Section 497 of the IPC, the Supreme Court has already declared that provision unconstitutional.

The Final Verdict

Concluding that the trial court's order was legally sound, the High Court held that the decision to discharge the accused from the charges under Sections 376 and 313 IPC was justified. The court found no illegality in the impugned order and observed that it did not result in a failure of justice.

"In the above circumstances, when the victim herself married another person in 2020 after an alleged seven-year love affair... and there is no evidence of her divorce from her husband, the accused cannot legally marry a married woman. The court is of the opinion that in such a situation, the accused has not committed any illegality by not marrying the victim," the bench ruled.

Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as being devoid of merit. The trial against accused no. 2 will, however, proceed for the remaining charges of intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and offences under the SC/ST Act.