False Promise to marry and Indian Legal Perspective

False Promise to Marry: Legal Perspectives and Supreme Court Judgments in India

Marriage, a sacred institution, is deeply entrenched in Indian society. However, this sacred bond is sometimes marred by promises that are made insincerely, leading to legal complications and profound emotional trauma. The issue of a "false promise to marry" has garnered significant attention in legal circles, particularly when such promises lead to sexual relations under the guise of a forthcoming marriage. The Supreme Court of India has been instrumental in delineating the contours of this legal concept, distinguishing it from a bona fide "promise to marry" and providing clarity on the ingredients that differentiate them.

Understanding ‘False Promise to Marry’

A "false promise to marry" occurs when an individual makes a promise of marriage without any genuine intention of fulfilling it. This deceitful assurance often results in the other party consenting to a sexual relationship, believing that marriage will follow. When this promise is broken, the aggrieved party may seek legal redress, claiming that the consent to sexual relations was obtained through deception.

Distinction Between ‘False Promise to Marry’ and ‘Promise to Marry’

The primary distinction between a false promise to marry and a genuine promise to marry lies in the intent at the time the promise was made. A false promise is characterized by the absence of any intention to marry, whereas a genuine promise to marry involves a sincere intention to enter into matrimony, even if circumstances prevent the marriage from eventually taking place.

Ingredients to Differentiate False Promise from Promise to Marry

1. Intent: The cornerstone of differentiating a false promise from a genuine promise is the intent. In the case of a false promise, the promisor never had the intention to marry from the outset.

2. Circumstances and Conduct: The surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties involved play a crucial role. A false promise is often accompanied by a pattern of deceitful behavior, whereas a genuine promise is made in good faith, even if it is ultimately not fulfilled.

3. Timing: The timing of the promise and subsequent actions can also indicate intent. If the promise is retracted soon after obtaining consent for sexual relations, it may indicate a false promise.

4. Consistency: The consistency in the promisor's actions and words over time can shed light on the genuineness of the promise. Inconsistent and evasive behavior often points towards a false promise.

Key Supreme Court Judgments

The Supreme Court of India has adjudicated several cases related to false promises to marry, providing critical insights into the legal interpretation of such promises.

Case 1: Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that consent obtained on the basis of a false promise to marry could be construed as rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that a false promise to marry, made without any intention of fulfillment, vitiates consent, as it is not given freely and voluntarily.

Case 2: Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)

The court in this case reiterated the principle that if the promise to marry was made with the sole intention of obtaining consent for sexual relations, and the promisor had no real intention to marry, it would constitute rape. The court distinguished between a breach of promise and a false promise, noting that a genuine promise, even if not fulfilled, does not amount to rape.

Case 3: Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)

In this case, the Supreme Court provided further clarity by stating that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to a false promise. The court emphasized the need to examine the intention of the accused at the time of making the promise. If the promise was made in good faith and the marriage did not take place due to subsequent circumstances, it would not be considered a false promise.

Recent Findings and Decisions

In recent years, the Supreme Court has continued to refine its stance on false promises to marry. The court has stressed the importance of scrutinizing the intent and conduct of the accused, as well as the context in which the promise was made. The judgments have underscored that each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and merits, ensuring that justice is served while preventing misuse of legal provisions.

Conclusion

The legal landscape surrounding false promises to marry is nuanced and complex. The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in providing clarity on this issue, ensuring that genuine promises are distinguished from deceitful ones. By emphasizing intent, conduct, and circumstances, the court has laid down a robust framework for adjudicating such cases, protecting the rights of individuals while maintaining the sanctity of the institution of marriage.



STAY Connected:

Kapeesh Law Chambers

Lawyers Chamber Block-II,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Location: J65P+8HF, Bapa Nagar, India Gate, New Delhi, Delhi 110003, India

Popular posts from this blog

Removing the Corporate Veil: An Analysis of Recent Precedents and Judgments

  Introduction   The doctrine of separate legal entity is a cornerstone of corporate law. Established in the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), this principle dictates that a company is distinct from its shareholders and directors. However, there are situations where courts "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil to hold individuals accountable for the company’s actions. The concept of removing the corporate veil is a legal remedy invoked in circumstances involving fraud, malfeasance, or where justice demands it.   This article delves into the modern evolution of this doctrine, analyzing recent cases and judicial trends that shed light on when and how the corporate veil can be lifted.     The Principle of Corporate Veil   In Salomon v Salomon, the House of Lords reinforced the notion that a company enjoys a distinct legal identity. Mr. Salomon, a boot manufacturer, transferred his business to a newly formed company in wh...
Read more

Framing of Charges in Criminal Proceedings: An Overview and Remedies Available to the Accused for Dismissal (with BNSS Provisions)

Introduction In criminal jurisprudence, the framing of charges represents a critical stage of a trial. This process is a formal declaration by the court outlining the specific accusations made against the accused. It ensures that the accused knows the charges they face, which enables them to prepare an appropriate defense. The objective is to maintain fairness and transparency within the legal framework. The recent enactment of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) introduces certain new provisions that aim to make the process more efficient and less cumbersome.     What is the Framing of Charges?   Framing of charges occurs after the investigation is complete and the prosecution has submitted its charge sheet to the court. If the court finds prima facie evidence, it frames charges against the accused. This marks the beginning of the formal trial, where the accused can plead guilty or contest the charges.   Under the new framework of the BNSS, pro...
Read more

Ignorance of Law is No Excuse: A Detailed Analysis with Reference to Recent Supreme Court Judgments

Introduction The Legal maxim " Ignorantia juris non excusat” or “Ignorance of law is no excuse” is a fundamental principle in Indian jurisprudence, ensuring that ignorance of the law does not exempt individuals or entities from legal liability. This doctrine is crucial for the maintenance of the rule of law, ensuring uniform application and enforcement. Concept The principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse wrongdoing has its origins in Roman law and is firmly embedded in common law traditions. The assumption is that laws are publicly accessible and that all individuals have a responsibility to inform themselves about the legal requirements governing their actions. In India, this principle is a cornerstone of the legal system, upheld consistently across various legal forums, including the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court Judgments A notable reaffirmation of this principle came in the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Union of ...
Read more