The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment in the wake of a spate of cohabitation cases. After cohabiting for a while, on the male ..
The Supreme Court has made key remarks in the wake of the ever-increasing number of cohabitation cases. Chief Justice of India SA Bobde has commented that consensual cohabitation by a woman cannot be considered rape at a time when women are filing rape cases against men after cohabitation for some time.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a man is not subject to rape if he has intercourse with her for financial or physical reasons. The accused in the case, the woman (the person who filed the case) has been living together for two years. When the accused married another woman, the woman then lodged a complaint with the police. The Supreme Court, which heard the case, made comments to this effect.
The couple from Uttar Pradesh have been in a romantic relationship for two years. But the woman refused to have sex until marriage. Meanwhile, Aditya Vashishtnath, counsel for women, told the apex court that the accused had maintained a fraudulent relationship with their client since February 2014. The couple went to Manali and said that they were “married at the Hidimba temple” there. However, the accused denied the allegations regarding the marriage and clarified that they had been living together for two years. However, the woman told the court that the accused had subjugated her through the false bond of marriage.
The Supreme Court, which heard the case, said, “It is a crime to make false promises about marriage. No one should make false promises in marriage and divorce, but sex should not be considered rape, ”the CJI-led tribunal said.
The woman alleged that the accused not only tortured her but also injured her. Therefore, she was admitted to the hospital. He also claimed that his leg was broken. After hearing the woman’s remarks, the Chief Justice asked her to file a case as if she had been assaulted.
The tribunal said it would provide protection to the accused for four weeks but could not arrest him. However, the court clarified that the FIR in this case could not be dismissed. “The tribunal said it would appeal to the trial court after the evidence was collected.