Supreme Court, high court, consensual intercourse, rape, extramarital affair, false promises, sex

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Koteshwar Singh quashed the seven-year-old FIR filed by Vanita S Jadhav against Mahesh Damu Khare at Kharghar Police Station in Mumbai. The court observed: “This is a disturbing situation that lends a criminal dimension to long-term consensual relationships once disagreements have arisen. Complaints based on false marriage promises should be made immediately and not years after a relationship has been maintained.”

According to reports, Mahesh Damu Khare, a married man, and Vanita S Jadhav, a widow, started their relationship in 2008. Jadhav claimed that Khare promised to marry him after which they entered into a physical relationship.

The case further escalated when Khare’s wife filed a complaint against Jadhav, alleging extortion. Later in March 2017, Jadhav filed a rape case against Khare, citing unfulfilled marriage promise.

Supreme Court Observations

The court noted that Jadhav could not have maintained a consensual relationship with Khare for years and then claim that this relationship was based solely on his promise to marry Khare.

The court ruled that if a woman enters into a long-term physical relationship with a man, it cannot automatically be assumed that the relationship is based solely on the promise of marriage. The court emphasized that a woman may enter into such relationships for reasons other than the man’s promise to marry her.

In order for the crime of rape to occur under the pretext of a fake marriage, it must be proven that the sexual intercourse was based solely on the promise of marriage and that the woman’s consent was misunderstood and violated due to the man’s later refusal to marry.

A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held: “If a man is accused of having sexual intercourse by giving false promise of marriage and is to be held criminally liable, the intercourse must arise directly from the false promise made without being influenced by other considerations.”

The court also noted that a woman may enter into a physical relationship because she personally likes her partner, without any intention of formalizing the relationship through marriage.

The Board added that in cases where the relationship is knowingly maintained for a long period of time, it cannot be said with certainty that the relationship is based solely on an alleged promise of marriage.