'Before marriage, a boy and girl are strangers': SC questions premarital intimacy in rape-on-marriage-promise case

While hearing a bail plea in an alleged rape on false promise of marriage case, the Supreme Court made oral observations on premarital relationships and indicated mediation.

• Supreme Court urges caution in premarital relationships case
• Court may refer alleged false promise rape case to mediation
• Bail plea pending; accused allegedly deceived woman on marriage

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday made pointed oral observations on premarital relationships while hearing a bail plea in an alleged rape on false promise of marriage case, saying 'before marriage, a boy and a girl are strangers' and urging 'circumspection' before entering physical relationships. The remarks, reported by Live Law, came during arguments on whether the accused should be granted bail.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering the plea of a man accused of inducing a 30-year-old woman into a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage, despite being already married and later marrying another woman.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna observed, “Maybe we are old fashioned but before marriage a boy and a girl are strangers. Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship. We fail to understand how they can be indulging in physical relationship before marriage. Maybe we are old fashioned. You must be very careful, nobody should believe anybody before marriage.”

The remarks were made in the course of arguments on bail and were not part of a final judgment.

The prosecution alleges that the complainant met the accused on a matrimonial website in 2022. It claims he established physical relations with her in Delhi and later in Dubai on the promise that he would marry her.

According to the complaint, she travelled to Dubai at his insistence. There, he allegedly again had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. She has further alleged that he recorded intimate videos without her consent and threatened to circulate them.

She later discovered that he had married a second woman on January 19, 2024, in Punjab.

Justice Nagarathna asked during the hearing why the complainant travelled to Dubai before marriage. When government counsel pointed out that the two had met on a matrimonial website and were planning to marry, the judge observed that if the woman was particular about marriage, she should not have travelled prior to it.

“She should not have gone before marriage if she was so strict about it. We will send them to mediation. These are not cases which are to be tried and convicted when there is a consensual relationship,” Justice Nagarathna said, as reported by Live Law.

The Bench indicated that it may refer the matter to mediation and listed the case for Wednesday to explore the possibility of settlement.

The accused’s earlier bail applications were rejected by both the Sessions Court and the Delhi High Court.

On November 18, 2025, the Delhi High Court denied bail, observing that the allegations prima facie suggested the promise of marriage was false from the beginning, particularly as the accused was already married and had married again on January 19, 2024.

Relying on established judicial precedents, the High Court held that consent obtained on a false promise of marriage may be invalid if the promise was made in bad faith and without the intention to marry.

The accused then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

The case now stands at the intersection of consent, alleged deception and criminal liability, with the Supreme Court yet to decide on bail while signalling a possible move toward mediation.