Matrimonial Status and Consent: An Analysis of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgment on Sexual Relations Based on Marriage Promise

By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate 

---

Introduction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment that delves into the sensitive intersection of matrimonial status, consent, and allegations of sexual assault arising from promises of marriage. This ruling clarifies how the law views consent obtained under a “misconception of fact” (as defined under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) when the complainant is already married.

This decision not only reinforces the importance of judicial scrutiny in sexual assault prosecutions but also contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on what constitutes “valid consent” in cases involving promises of marriage.

---

Case Citation and Bench

• Case Title: Withheld for privacy (Criminal Appeal No. [Number], decided August 2025)

• Bench: Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal

---

Factual Background

The case arose from allegations by a married woman who accused the appellant of sexual assault on the pretext of a promise to marry her.

• The complainant, a homemaker with two children, stated that she had strained relations with her husband, who was serving in the Indian Army.

• She alleged that divorce proceedings were underway when she entered into a physical relationship with the appellant, relying on his assurances of marriage.

• The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC (rape) and sentenced him to nine years of rigorous imprisonment.

---

Judicial Reasoning

The High Court, while overturning the conviction, provided a careful and layered reasoning:

1. Matrimonial Status and Inducement

The Court stressed that the concept of inducement to marry holds different weight for a woman who is already married. Unlike an unmarried woman, whose consent might more readily be influenced by a promise of marriage, the same logic does not automatically extend to a complainant still bound in an existing matrimonial relationship.

2. Evidentiary Assessment

The Court highlighted contradictions in the prosecution’s case. Notably, the complainant admitted to:

• Continuing to reside with her in-laws, and

• Having no documentary proof of ongoing divorce proceedings.

These admissions undermined her claim that she was preparing for a new marital life with the appellant.

3. Consent under Section 90 IPC

In a crucial finding, the Court clarified that Section 90 IPC, which invalidates consent obtained through “misconception of fact,” cannot be stretched to situations where a mature, married woman voluntarily enters into a physical relationship while her first marriage subsists.

4. Procedural Irregularities

The appellant had also challenged the trial proceedings, citing non-compliance with Section 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which mandates that prosecution must be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. While the High Court acknowledged this procedural lapse, it concluded that it had not prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair trial, as he was given full opportunity to defend himself.

---

Legal Precedents and Jurisprudence

Although the ruling primarily turned on statutory interpretation, it resonates with prior judicial observations distinguishing between:

• Mere breach of a promise to marry, and

• Fraudulent misrepresentation vitiating consent.

The Court drew upon this evolving jurisprudence to underline that not every failed promise of marriage amounts to rape.

---

Key Principle Established

The High Court crystallized the following principle:

“When a mature, married woman consents to sexual relations on a promise of marriage and continues the relationship while her first marriage subsists, such consent cannot be treated as vitiated under Section 90 IPC solely because the promise of marriage remains unfulfilled.”

This principle draws a sharp line between cases involving unmarried women—where promises of marriage may exert greater influence—and those involving women already bound by an existing marriage.

---

Concluding Observations

This judgment is a landmark clarification in the ongoing discourse on consent, autonomy, and the boundaries of criminal liability in sexual relationships. Key takeaways include:

• Contextual Consent: Consent must be assessed in light of the complainant’s matrimonial status, maturity, and circumstances.

• Evidentiary Scrutiny: Courts must critically evaluate the credibility of claims about marriage promises, especially when conflicting with established matrimonial ties.

• Balanced Approach: The ruling avoids over-criminalization by recognizing the difference between broken relationships and criminal misconduct.

By emphasizing the complainant’s maturity, her age (notably ten years older than the appellant), and her continued residence in her matrimonial home, the Court signaled the implausibility of the inducement claim.

Ultimately, this decision adds clarity to the contours of Section 376 IPC and Section 90 IPC, shaping a more nuanced approach to sexual assault cases rooted in promises of marriage.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational and academic purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified legal professional for advice regarding specific legal issues or cases. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official position of any organization or institution.

Copyright Notice: © 2025 Abhishek Jat, Advocate. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author. Unauthorized use or reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action.