SC Cautions Against Pre-Marital Intimacy: 'Before Marriage, Boy And Girl Are Strangers'
· Free Press Journal
Supreme Court on Monday offered significant verbal observations regarding the nature of pre-marital intimacy while presiding over a bail plea involving allegations of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that individuals should maintain a high degree of circumspection before entering into physical relationships prior to legal union. The court noted that regardless of the perceived depth of a relationship, a man and a woman remain strangers in a legal and social sense until marriage is formalised, suggesting that a lack of caution can lead to complex legal and personal consequences.
Visit forestarrow.rest for more information.
Judicial scepticism over pre-marital intimacy
During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna expressed a traditional viewpoint on the evolution of relationships, questioning the decision-making process that leads to physical intimacy before marriage. The Justice remarked that while the court’s perspective might be viewed as old-fashioned, it remains difficult to reconcile the leap into a physical relationship when the parties involved have no formal bond. The bench highlighted that individuals must remain vigilant and sceptical of promises made during the courtship phase, stating plainly that no one should be fully believed before a marriage is actually solemnised.
Allegations of deceit and coercion in matrimonial search
The case at the centre of these remarks involves a 30-year-old complainant who met the petitioner through a matrimonial website in 2022.
According to the prosecution, the man lured the woman into a physical relationship by promising marriage, despite already being married to another woman at the time. The relationship reportedly spanned multiple locations, including Delhi and Dubai. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner recorded intimate videos without her consent and used them as leverage to threaten her, only for her to later discover that he had married yet another woman in Punjab in early 2024.
Questioning the complainant’s decisions and proposing mediation
According to LiveLaw, Justice Nagarathna raised specific questions regarding the complainant’s choice to travel to Dubai to meet the petitioner before any formal union took place. When the government counsel argued that the travel was predicated on the intent to marry established via the matrimonial platform, the judge countered that if a person is strict about the sanctity of marriage, they should refrain from such travel and intimacy until the wedding is finalised. The bench suggested that cases involving arguably consensual relationships are often unsuitable for the standard path of trial and conviction.
Shift toward settlement and future proceedings
Despite the Delhi High Court previously denying bail on the grounds that the petitioner's promise of marriage appeared fraudulent from the start, the Supreme Court has indicated a preference for a different resolution. The bench expressed an intent to refer the parties to mediation to explore a possible settlement rather than pursuing a criminal conviction. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing this Wednesday to determine if a mediated agreement can be reached between the two parties.