On August 14, while rejecting a bail petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that in India, girls don't indulge in "carnal activities" for fun without the assurance of marriage.
"India has not reached that level yet where girls would indulge in carnal activities for fun," the court said.
"India has not yet reached such level (advance or lower) of civilization where unmarried girls, regardless of their religion, indulge in carnal activities with boys just for the fun of it, unless the same is backed by some future promise/assurance of marriage. (sic)"Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar further said, "A boy who is entering into a physical relationship with a lass must realize that his actions have consequences and should be ready to face the same (sic)."
'Girl Didn't Enter Into Relationship Only for Enjoyment'
The court was hearing a case where it was alleged that the accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered in the case under Section 376 (Rape) and Section 366 (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage) of the Indian Penal Code and various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The counsel for applicant/accused submitted that his client and the prosecutrix had an affair for two years and that the prosecutrix entered into a physical relationship with the applicant on her own free will as she is aged around 21 years. She falsely stated that the incident took place around three years ago, he added.
Further, it was argued that the parents of the prosecutrix and the applicant opposed their marriage as they were from different religions – the applicant is a Hindu whereas the prosecutrix is a Muslim. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage.
On the other hand, counsel for the state submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out as the applicant had repeatedly committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage since October 2018.
Further, it was highlighted that he refused to marry her and informed her on June 1 that his marriage was fixed to some other person. Following this, the prosecutrix attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl, but ultimately survived.
The court took note of the fact that the prosecutrix had tried to commit suicide, which apparently shows that she was serious about the relationship and that it cannot be said that she entered into the relationship only for enjoyment.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench.)
(Update: A previous version of this story had erroneously attributed the remarks to Madras High Court. The error is regretted.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)