The Delhi High Court has firmly dismissed the notion that an age difference between partners can serve as a defense in cases involving allegations of rape on the pretense of marriage. The Court underscored that such an argument perpetuates outdated patriarchal attitudes and has no place in legal reasoning.
The case involved a man accused of deceiving an older woman with false promises of marriage, inducing her into a physical relationship, and later refusing both the marriage and the return of substantial financial assistance she provided.
The woman claimed that the man, her colleague, began pursuing her in 2017 with assurances of a shared future. Believing his promises, she engaged in a physical relationship and extended financial support exceeding ₹4-5 lakhs. When he eventually reneged on his commitments, she filed a criminal complaint in 2021.
The accused sought to quash the FIR, arguing that their relationship was consensual and attributing the allegations to what he described as the victim’s “obsession” with marriage. His counsel further argued that the woman, being older, should have foreseen potential challenges in the union.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed these claims, asserting that the man’s actions from the outset reflected no genuine intention to marry but rather a deliberate plan to exploit the victim emotionally and financially. The Court emphasized that such behavior necessitated a full trial.
“The burden cannot be unfairly shifted onto the victim to foresee the petitioner’s refusal to marry when he himself actively pursued the relationship, gave assurances of marriage, and induced financial and emotional commitments,” the Court observed.
The judgment denounced the argument of age-related foresight as “legally untenable,” labeling it as a deeply patriarchal and flawed premise. Additionally, the Court rejected the characterization of the victim as “obsessed,” calling it reflective of misogyny and devoid of legal merit.
“A woman’s decision to engage in a relationship based on specific promises cannot be trivialized as mere obsession. Such arguments lack legal standing and serve to shift accountability from the petitioner, who failed to honor his assurances,” the Court ruled.
The plea to quash the FIR was dismissed, affirming the necessity for the case to proceed through the judicial process.
