"Be careful before marriage”: Supreme Court’s strong remarks on pre-marital physical relationships
text_fields
The Supreme Court on Monday made strong observations on physical relationships before marriage while hearing a bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape on the promise of marriage.
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of a man accused of establishing a physical relationship with a woman after assuring her of marriage, despite being married at the time and later marrying another woman.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna said caution must be exercised before entering into a physical relationship prior to marriage. She remarked that before marriage, a man and a woman are strangers and questioned how they could be in a physical relationship before marriage, adding that people should be careful and not believe anyone before marriage.
"Maybe we are old-fashioned, before marriage, a boy and a girl are strangers. Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship, we fail to understand how they can be in a physical relationship before marriage. You must be very careful. Nobody should believe anybody before marriage," said Justice Nagarathna.
The court was informed that the woman and the accused met in 2022 through a matrimonial services website. According to the prosecution, the man promised to marry the woman, based on which she agreed to a physical relationship that included meetings in Dubai.
The prosecution further alleged that videos of their sexual interaction were recorded without the woman’s consent and that she was threatened with their circulation. It was also stated that the woman later discovered the man had been married throughout and had subsequently married another woman in Punjab in January 2024.
Justice Nagarathna questioned why the woman chose to travel to Dubai before marriage. When government counsel argued that the two were planning to marry, the bench observed that if the woman was particular about marriage, she should not have travelled prior to it.
The bench remarked that the matter appeared to involve a consensual relationship and said such cases were not meant for trial and conviction. The court indicated that the parties would be referred to mediation and listed the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.