The Supreme Court on Monday made pointed oral remarks on pre-marital relationships while hearing a bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering the plea of a man accused of inducing a 30-year-old woman into a physical relationship by assuring her that he would marry her. The complainant has alleged that at the time of making the promise, the accused was already married and subsequently went on to marry another woman.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna made observations that have since drawn attention. “Maybe we are old-fashioned, but before marriage a boy and a girl are strangers,” she remarked in court. “Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship, we fail to understand how they can be indulging in a physical relationship before marriage. Maybe we are old-fashioned. You must be very careful. Nobody should believe anybody before marriage.”
The prosecution has alleged that the complainant met the petitioner on a matrimonial website in 2022. According to the complaint, he established a physical relationship with her on several occasions in Delhi and later in Dubai, repeatedly assuring her that he would marry her.
The woman has further claimed that she travelled to Dubai at his insistence, where he again entered into a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. She has also alleged that he recorded intimate videos without her consent and threatened to circulate them if she opposed him.
It later came to light, according to the complainant, that the accused had married another woman on 19 January 2024 in Punjab.
During the course of arguments, Justice Nagarathna questioned why the complainant had travelled to Dubai to meet the accused.
When the government counsel submitted that the two had connected through a matrimonial platform and were planning to marry, the judge observed that if the woman had been particular about marriage, she ought not to have travelled before it took place. “She should not have gone before marriage if she was so strict about it. We will send them to mediation. These are not cases which are to be tried and convicted when there is a consensual relationship,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The Bench indicated that it may refer the matter to mediation and listed the case for Wednesday to explore the possibility of a settlement.
The accused’s earlier attempts to secure bail had been unsuccessful. Both the Sessions Court and the Delhi High Court rejected his plea.
On 18 November 2025, the High Court declined bail, observing that the allegations prima facie indicated that the promise of marriage may have been false from the outset, particularly since the petitioner was already married and later married another woman on 19 January 2024.
Citing judicial precedents, the High Court noted that consent obtained on the basis of a false promise of marriage may not be valid if it is shown that the promise was made in bad faith and without any intention of being fulfilled. Following the High Court’s order, the accused approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.
