In a courtroom moment that quickly sparked discussion beyond legal circles, the Supreme Court of India made a pointed observation on pre-marital relationships while hearing a bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage. The bench remarked that before marriage, a boy and a girl are essentially strangers, and therefore individuals must exercise caution before entering into physical relationships.
The matter was being heard by a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The case centers on a 30-year-old woman who alleged that the accused man misled her into a physical relationship by promising marriage, even though he was already married at the time. She claimed they met on a matrimonial platform in 2022, after which he assured her repeatedly that he would marry her.
According to the allegations presented in court, the accused established physical relations with the complainant on multiple occasions in Delhi and later in Dubai. The woman stated that she travelled abroad at his insistence. During the Dubai visit, she alleged that he recorded intimate videos without her consent and later threatened to circulate them if she opposed him.
The case took a sharper turn when the woman discovered that the accused had married another woman in Punjab on January 19, 2024. This revelation, she argued, confirmed that his promise of marriage was never genuine. Earlier, both the Sessions Court and the Delhi High Court had rejected his bail plea. In November 2025, the High Court observed that the promise appeared false from the outset, especially considering that the man was already married and subsequently remarried.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna made oral remarks that have since drawn attention. The judge stated that perhaps the court may be “old-fashioned,” but before marriage, a boy and girl remain strangers, and individuals must be very careful before placing trust in someone. The bench also questioned why the complainant travelled to Dubai if she was firm about her expectations before marriage.
At the same time, the court noted that cases involving consensual relationships complicated by broken promises may not always be fit for trial and conviction. The bench suggested referring the parties to mediation, indicating that criminal prosecution might not necessarily be the most appropriate solution in every such situation. The matter has now been posted for further hearing to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties.
The legal debate in such cases often revolves around whether consent was obtained through deception. Indian courts have consistently held that if a promise of marriage is made dishonestly from the beginning, it could amount to rape. However, if a relationship turns sour later due to circumstances, it may not automatically qualify as criminal deception. Determining the accused’s intent at the inception of the relationship becomes crucial.
This case once again brings into focus the complex intersection of consent, trust, social expectations, and criminal law. While some interpret the Supreme Court’s remarks as a cautionary note about personal responsibility, others view the situation as a reminder of the vulnerability that can arise when trust is misplaced.
As the case proceeds, legal observers are watching closely. The outcome could influence how courts approach similar allegations involving promises of marriage and consensual relationships in the future. For now, the focus remains on whether mediation will lead to a resolution or whether the court will proceed to examine the bail plea on its merits.