Promises And Pitfalls - Examining The Legal Boundaries Of False Marriage Promises
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Family & Personal Law
Published:
Updated:
PROMISES AND PITFALLS: EXAMINING THE LEGAL
BOUNDARIES OF FALSE MARRIAGE PROMISES
Mahika Singh, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
This paper delves into the Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2022) case, which touches on sensitive issues surrounding relationships, trust, and the law’s role in personal promises. At its core, the case is about an accusation of rape based on a broken promise of marriage, a topic that raises challenging questions in today’s world where relationship norms are changing rapidly. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that this was a consensual relationship, highlighting the difficulty in differentiating genuine relationships from those potentially built on deceit. This analysis also examines the impact of new legal provisions, like Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), designed to address “false promises to marry.
” By comparing these legal frameworks, we see both progress and areas for improvement in how the law can better support people navigating complex personal relationships. Keywords: False promises; Rape allegations; Consent; Moral and Ethical Implications
INTRODUCTION
The Shambhu Kharwar case brings forward questions that resonate with many people today: What happens when a personal commitment, like a promise to marry, becomes the basis for legal accusations? In this case, the accused was charged with rape based on an alleged false promise of marriage. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the relationship was consensual and didn’t meet the legal criteria for rape. This decision brings up essential discussions around how the law interprets personal relationships in an era where live-in partnerships and evolving social expectations are increasingly common. It all started when the appellant and the second respondent began their relationship while attending a Teachers' Training College in 2013.
However, on 12 June 2014, despite her relationship with the appellant, the second respondent got married to someone else and the marriage was legally solemnized. The second respondent claims that appellant compelled her to leave the matrimonial relationship. Consequently, the marriage came to an end and she left the matrimonial house after living there for barely three months. She then, lived in her parental home since March
2015. After returning to her parental home, the second respondent continued her
relationship with the appellant and started living with him after her training got over in 2016. It is essential to note that the second respondent was granted a divorce by mutual consent from her husband on 17 September, 2017 by the Family Court at Ballia. The issue started when the appellant got engaged to another person, despite his ongoing relationship with the second respondent on 10 December, 2017. The appellant promised to break his engagement but failed to do so. As a result, on 18 January 2018, the aggrieved second respondent filed a complaint against the appellant, leading to the registration of Case Crime No 11 of 2018 at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia. Fast-forward to the proceedings in High Court of Allahabad, the appellant was accused of rape as no specific provision for “false promise to marry” existed. The application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings against the
appellant was dismissed by High Court. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the relationship was consensual and the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 376 IPC were not met. THE ISSUE OF QUASHING THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Supreme Court’s Reasoning in Favor of the Appellant: As mentioned in the facts, the High Court (referred to has ‘HC’ further) dismissed the appeal to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant. Therefore, the Supreme Court (referred to as ‘SC’ further) overturned this judgement by emphasising the cautions the ought to be exercised under Section 482 CrPC, while quashing or rejecting to quash an appeal. The SC repeated it’s judgement given in R. P.
Kapur v State of Punjab1 and State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal2, to laydown the parameters under which HC can practice the powers under section
482 CrPC.
The parameters are as follows:
1. If the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) or complaint, even if they
are taken at face value and accepted as entirely true, do not constitute any offense or do not make out a case against the accused, then the proceedings can be quashed.
2. If the allegations in the FIR and any other material accompanying it do not disclose a
cognizable offense, then the court may consider quashing the proceedings.
3. If it is clear that the proceedings have been instituted not because a crime has been
committed but to harass or seek revenge on the accused, then the court can quash the proceedings.
1 AIR 1960 SC 866
2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
The SC held that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not make out a case for rape (as essentials under section 375 of IPC couldn’t be fulfilled), and thus the proceedings should be quashed. Author’s Analysis of Potential Limitations in the Court’s Reasoning: In present case, a question of cognizable offence did not arise as the legislation lacked a provision for situations that includes a concept of “consent contingent to another’s act”. The SC’s definition in present case, was limited to “a voluntary agreement when the women by words, gestures or any other form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in a specific sexual act, provided that the woman doesn’t physically resist the act of penetration. ” Undoubtedly, in the present scenario, the appellant cannot be equated with a rapist.
However, one cannot ignore the need to recognize the usage of deceitful means to induce consent for sexual intercourse with a woman. His actions still amounted to a substantial wrongdoing, both morally and ethically. CONSENT AND ITS INTERPRETATION UNDER SECTION 90 OF IPC IN THE CONTEXT OF CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS Supreme Court’s Reasoning in Favor of the Appellant: The SC again repeated it’s old judgements of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra3 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh4 that there will always be a difference between false promise and a breach of promise. A false promise made on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken by him and a breach of promise which is originally made with good faith but cannot be fulfilled subsequently are two different things.
It further added that since they had a long-standing relationship, she had given him the consent. Here, the consent involved an active understanding of the circumstances, actions, and consequences of the proposed act. Since there is no “material” evidence that the appellant made a promise to marry at the outset with the intention to deceive her into a sexual
3 (2019) 9 SCC 608
4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181
relationship thus, the sexual relations did not stem from any misconception of fact regarding a false promise of marriage. Thus, it was a consensual relationship. Author’s Analysis of Potential Limitations in the Court’s Reasoning: It can be clearly concluded form the fact that the appellant had mischievous intentions form the start. They entered a relationship, after which the girl had to marry someone else, maybe due to familial pressure. Then the guy himself compelled the girl to break off the marriage. This act must have only strengthened his “so called intention to marry” in the mind of the girl. Thus, in a conservative society, she against the traditional views and her family’s honour, broke off the marriage.
Then he abandoned her to marry someone else by giving the excuse that due to unforeseen circumstance (maybe that his family didn’t want him to marry a divorcee) he failed to comply with his promise. SC has clearly failed to appreciate the psychological and social consequences that rose from this situation. This leads to two scenarios: First, where the guy himself was confused and wasn’t sure if his family will accept the girl or even if he himself wants to marry her. Second, where his “patriarchal ego” was bruised since the girl married someone else and he wanted to seek revenge. In the first scenario, the guy failed to communicate a disclaimer to the girl about the possibilities of the “unforeseen circumstances”. In the second scenario, he had mal intention to completely ruin the life of the girl as a society cannot accept such a character.
In any case, there was a major misconception of fact. The girl’s action of even breaking off the marriage to be with the appellant shows her good faith proving that she was wholly committed to him. However, the failure at the appellant’s end to either communicate the possibility of failure to comply or his omission to marry her amount to a substantial wrongdoing. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 375 IPC FOR RAPE Supreme Court’s Reasoning in Favor of the Appellant: SC gave the judgement as per the then provided legislation i. e. , section 375 of IPC. As per the wording of that legislation, the appellant didn’t commit rape. Even if the charge sheet is taken at its face value, it fails to establish the essentials of rape. As proved in the above issues, the relationship was consensual and there was no false promise to marry.
Therefore, her consent to the sexual relationship was not vitiated by a misconception of fact. Author’s Analysis of Potential Limitations in the Court’s Reasoning: The principal function of law is to consider intention of committing the crime and give punishment as per the degree of proven intent. A law maker’s function is to define a crime and balance the generalisation and specification of characteristics. The generalisation helps to provide ambiguity, flexibility and adaptability, and avoid loopholes where certain wrong actions might evade legal scrutiny. The specification ensures predictability, clarity in application of law and uniformity. The SC also failed to appreciate the societal complexities and harsh realities that will have to be faced by the second respondent.
She was living in a “live-in” relationship that is still not widely accepted both socially and legally as no special legislation has been passed. Morever, she is now a divorcee, which is another taboo that is widely unacceptable for conservative families. It is undisputed that the appellant was wrong here. He used deceitful means without any intention to fulfil his promise resulting in not only a contingent consent of the second respondent to indulge in sexual intercourse but also to break off her marriage against traditional views of the society. However, he didn’t necessarily commit “rape”. This creates the paradoxical situation that Aristotle talks about in his philosophies.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the SC gave the judgement to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant, on the basis of the then provided legislation which was only concerned with a strict definition of rape. It was a paradoxical situation, where at the time, the said facts could only be interpreted in one way. However, after the introduction of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 20235, such situations can be
5 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
better handled. The section 69 of BNS reads as follows: “Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. ” “Explanation. —“deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity. ” This will allow such situations to fall under a “cognizable crime”, where the facts at their face value will constitute a crime and thus, the criminal proceedings won’t have to be quashed by the court.
This will allow the courts to appreciate the consequences arising out of relationships where “rape” did not necessarily occur but one party was aggrieved due to deceitful promises. However, many are of opinion that such legislation that so strictly defines a “false promise” will destruct more than it will save. For example, in India, due to our culture, it is not the two “individuals” that marry each other, but two families. Their honour is then connected with each other. Suppose a man makes a promise to marry a girl. So, she divorces her husband and agrees to be his wife. Subsequently, if a family pressurises the man to not marry a divorcee, then also he’ll fall under this section, and be a victim to both societal pressure and incompetency of law. Furthermore, in many situations, the present circumstance supersedes the previous made promises.
Therefore, leaving no space for the question of whether the promise was made with good intention or not. This is way, it is essential for judiciary to analyse both legal and social spectrums before delivering any judgement, as no number of definitions can cover each and every unique situation. It will be upon the court’s discretion in what way they want to interpret the said situation, so that justice is delivered.