New Delhi:
Rajasthan High Court After allegedly married a woman, a rape case against a man was rejected, in which she was allegedly attacked. The court had removed the allegations after criminal action against the man – now the husband survived by rape – ‘will destroy the purity of marriage’.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, legal news website Live law Said, his decision is attributed to the ‘specialty of marriage’ and therefore, that their decision cannot be used as an example to remove rape charges if the complainants and the accused ‘reach a compromise’.
Justice Dhand also noted two Supreme Court verdicts for this impact, each of which was released after the woman and was married.
“Marriage is considered a sacred association between two persons – crossing the physical, emotional and spiritual bond. According to ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are done to carry forward ‘Religion‘ (Duty), ‘Article‘(Occupation), and’Like‘(Physical desire). ,
“… Marriage is more than a ritual, which cannot be allowed to be destroyed by continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner,” the judge announced.
Moving forward with these allegations, the court said, ‘Married life will disturb’.
After complaining by the woman, the eyebrow-raising decision came when she entered a physical relationship with the accused on the basis of the promise after the marriage. However, after getting pregnant, the man allegedly fed his abortion pills and refused further communication.
But at the time when his complaint was filed and the court heard this, the man and the woman were married, and then a petition was made to reduce rape charges.
Meanwhile, earlier this month, the Supreme Court said that unsuccessful romantic relationships do not always mean that sexual relations were forced to any party. The observation came when the apex court heard a petition by a person to reduce the rape charges leveled by its former fiancé.
Read | “Today’s morality is different”: Top court on rape cases after marriage promise
The woman’s lawyer said that the relationship in the question was ‘systematic’ and there were no ‘romantic’ in nature, which raised the question of ‘consent’. The court said that the situation was to investigate from both perspectives, and that “had no attachment to any one gender”.
The court eventually decided that he would listen to the man’s petition further.
