The submission that a woman must assume additional responsibility and foresee marriage-related difficulties solely because she is elder to her partner is based on a patriarchal premise, the Court said.
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that age gap cannot be used as a defence in rape cases based on a false promise of marriage, the accused cannot argue that the victim should have anticipated his future refusal to marry due to their age difference.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made this observation while rejecting a plea to dismiss a case against a man accused of raping an older woman under the pretense of marriage.
The Court stated that it was evident the accused never intended to marry the victim from the outset but deceived her into a physical relationship through false assurances of marriage.
“Given these circumstances, the allegations against the petitioner necessitate a full trial, as they disclose a prima facie case of sexual exploitation under false assurances, making the quashing of the FIR unwarranted at this stage,” the Court ruled.
According to the woman, the accused, who was her colleague, began pursuing her in 2017. He proposed marriage and assured her of a future together.
Relying on this assurance, she entered into a physical relationship with him and also provided financial assistance amounting to ₹4-5 lakhs. However, the man later refused both to marry her and to return the money, prompting her to file a criminal case in 2021.
Challenging the FIR, the accused’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and claimed that the woman was “obsessed” with him and had unilaterally expected marriage.
The Court found the argument contradictory, noting that the counsel had acknowledged the couple had met each other’s families and shared a mutual understanding of marriage.
Additionally, it dismissed the claim that the victim, being older than the accused, should have foreseen the possibility that the marriage might not materialize.
“The argument that the victim should have realized the difficulties in marriage due to being elder to the petitioner is legally untenable and devoid of merit. The petitioner, despite being fully aware of the age difference, actively pursued the relationship, gave assurances of marriage, and induced the victim to make financial and emotional commitments. The burden cannot be unfairly shifted onto the victim to have foreseen the petitioner’s future refusal to marry when he himself assured her of a shared future,” the Court said.
The Court further stated that this argument stemmed from a patriarchal perspective.
“Further, the submission that a woman must assume additional responsibility and foresee marriage-related difficulties solely because she is elder to her partner is based on a patriarchal and legally flawed premise.”
Regarding the claim that the woman was obsessed with the accused, the Court stated that such an argument reflected misogynistic views.
“A woman’s decision to engage in a relationship based on the man’s specific promises cannot be dismissed as mere obsession when the man later reneges on his commitment. Such an argument not only lacks legal standing but also reflects a misogynistic perspective that seeks to impose an unreasonable burden on the victim while absolving the petitioner of accountability for his own assurances,” the Court stated.
As a result, the plea was rejected.