In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that if a man arranges a rented house for a woman, the same will not establish his ‘intent to marry’ her but displays his intent to keep her ‘easily available’ for his pleasures.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale refused to accept the argument of a man that he had arranged a rented place for the complainant woman, which established his ‘intention’ to marry her.
“The mere fact of renting various premises for the victim to reside is not an indication of an intent to marry. In fact, it is otherwise. It displays the intent of the Petitioner to keep the victim in a place where she would be easily available for his pleasure at any time of his convenience. Mere facilitating a rented house for the victim does not establish an intent to marry. It demonstrates an intention of the Petitioner to keep the victim readily available for his pleasure,” the judges held.
The bench was hearing a plea filed by a man, a resident of Sewri, Mumbai, seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against him under charges of rape on the promise of marriage.
As per the prosecution case, the victim, a resident of Palghar, was an acquaintance of the petitioner and was also a divorcee. She lived with her minor son. She got a junior artist role in some TV show on a reference made by the petitioner. They became close friends and the petitioner assured to look after her son from her previous marriage. He then established sexual relations with the victim. From March 2016 onwards, the relationship started.
In 2018, the petitioner rented a house for the petitioner at Bhayander in Thane district, where he used to live with her for 2 to 3 days a week. The relationship continued. However, when the victim asked the petitioner to fulfil his promise to marry her, he allegedly assaulted her and as a result, she left the rented house.
Later, the petitioner apologised for his conduct and again requested the victim to join him and assured her that he would soon marry her. She moved with him in another rented house, that he arranged for her and the couple continued with its intimate relationship. However, when the victim conceived, the petitioner asked her to abort the foetus. He even abused and assaulted her. It was alleged that even during pregnancy, the petitioner forced her to have sex with him. Subsequently, when the victim delivered a child, the petitioner refused to marry her and even denied the paternity of the child.
Therefore, in August 2022, the victim lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner.
Appearing for the petitioner advocate Sana Khan, argued that the petitioner always had the intent to marry the victim and for that reason only he had arranged rented homes for her. However, he backed off only after learning that the victim had a child from a prior marriage.
“It is attempted to establish that this is a case of a mere breach of promise and not that of giving a false promise to marry. It is evident from the contents of the FIR that, the sexual relationship was purely on the assurance of the Petitioner to marry the victim. The Petitioner even assured her that he would look after her son of an earlier marriage. Despite this, it is urged to us that we must appreciate the Petitioner’s defence that, he fully intended to marry her but only the fact about her son made him change his mind. We cannot at this stage analyse the defence of the Petitioner but are required to look into only the averments in the FIR and ascertain prima facie whether the alleged offence is disclosed from its bare reading,” the bench said.
We cannot proceed to appreciate the evidence of the parties to establish intent or mala fide and conduct a mini-trial at this stage, the judges opined, adding, “Admittedly, there existed a physical intimate relationship between the parties. As per the statement of the victim, she consented to the relationship upon a promise to marry her. However, right from the beginning, the Petitioner had no intention to marry her.”
The judges clarified that this was not a case where there was an intention to marry and then the couple enjoyed an intimate relationship but it later did not fructify in a marital tie. They added that the present case was also not a case of mere breach of promise to marry.
“Even the act of the Petitioner in abusing and assaulting the victim when he learnt that, she conceived from him indicate lack of intent right from the beginning. The consent of the victim to the sexual relationship, even if presumed to be given, is vitiated by the ‘misconception of the fact’ which was that the victim believed that the Petitioner would marry her. It was on this assurance and promise that she decided to engage in the sexual act,” the judges observed. (Bombay High Court rented house Case)
With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea.
Appearance:
Advocates Aditya Parmar and Sana Khan appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Vinod Chate represented State.
Advocates MA Khan, Tajammul Khan and Mizan Khan for the Complainant.
Case Title: Pramod Purabiya vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal WP/4399/2022)
#law #lawyer #lawyers #attorney #lawfirm #lawyerlife #justice #lawschool #lawyersofinstagram #lawstudent #advocate #supremecourt #personalinjury #litigation #court #legalnews #attorneys #business #abogados #lawstudents #derecho #indianlaw #clat #attorneyatlaw #legalservices #abogado #familylaw #judiciary #cannabis #law #lawyer #lawyers #attorney #lawfirm #lawyerlife #justice #lawschool #lawyersofinstagram #lawstudent #advocate #supremecourt #personalinjury #litigation #court #legalnews #attorneys #business #abogados #lawstudents #derecho #indianlaw #clat #attorneyatlaw #legalservices #abogado #familylaw #judiciary #cannabis
