Supreme Court: False Promise to Marry Not Rape
The Supreme Court rules that a false promise to marry does not constitute rape in consensual relationships, clarifying legal perspectives on consent and marital intentions in intimate partnerships.
Two Landmark Rulings Clarify Legal Position
The Supreme Court of India has delivered significant judgments clarifying that allegations of rape based solely on false promises to marry are legally untenable in consensual adult relationships. Two recent cases - Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 635) and Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 782) - establish important precedents for relationship-based rape allegations.
Court's Reasoning on Live-in Relationships
In the Ravish Singh Rana case, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held that "if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences."
The Court emphasized that in such circumstances, allegations that the relationship was established due to a promise of marriage become "unworthy of acceptance," particularly when there's no evidence that physical relations would not have occurred without such a promise.
Married Woman's False Promise Case
In Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court addressed a more complex scenario involving a married woman. Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma quashed criminal proceedings where a married woman had accused a young man of rape on the ground of false promise of marriage.
The Court found it "inconceivable that a legally married woman could be induced into sexual relations on a promise of marriage" and ruled that "even assuming such a promise was made, it would be unenforceable in law, being contrary to public policy and morality."
Case Backgrounds
Live-in Relationship Case
The Ravish Singh Rana case involved charges under Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. His live-in partner had alleged that he established physical relations under false promises of marriage. The couple had lived together for approximately two years in a rented accommodation.
Married Woman Case
In the Amol Bhagwan Nehul case, a married woman with a child accused her younger neighbor, a B.Sc. Agriculture student, of rape based on alleged false promises of marriage. The relationship lasted from June 2022 to July 2023. The woman had obtained a divorce (Khulanama) only in December 2022, well after the relationship began. The Court noted the 23-day delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence supporting the allegations.
Evolving Social Context
The Supreme Court acknowledged the changing social landscape, noting that "more and more women are financially independent and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on their own terms." This financial independence has contributed to the proliferation of live-in relationships, requiring courts to adopt a more contemporary approach rather than a "pedantic" one.
Legal Implications and Precedents
Both judgments establish that courts should presume implied consent in long-term consensual relationships based on duration and conduct of parties. The rulings invoke the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) for quashing proceedings that are "maliciously instituted with ulterior motives" or involve "allegations that are absurd or inherently improbable."
The Courts cautioned against treating every failed promise to marry as rape, emphasizing that "treating every breach of promise as rape would dilute the sanctity of consent and overburden the judicial system." The judgments referenced precedents including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), which emphasized that breach of promise constitutes rape only if proven that there was no intention to marry from the beginning.
Key Legal Principles Established
Presumption of Voluntary Consent: Extended consensual relationships create legal presumption of voluntary participation
Unenforceable Promises: Promises of marriage made to already-married individuals are legally invalid and unenforceable
Conduct Analysis: Courts must examine totality of circumstances, including duration, conduct, and consistency of allegations
Protection Against Misuse: Criminal law should not be weaponized for personal vengeance in failed relationships
Outcomes
In both cases, the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs and consequential proceedings, holding them to be "abuse of the process of the court." The Uttarakhand High Court's order in the Rana case and the Bombay High Court's dismissal in the Nehul case were both set aside.
The Courts observed that "such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence" and warned against the misuse of rape provisions in consensual relationship disputes.
These landmark rulings provide crucial clarity on the legal treatment of consensual adult relationships and establish important safeguards against misuse of rape provisions in cases involving long-term relationships where mutual consent can be reasonably inferred from the parties' conduct and circumstances.