A sessions court in Mumbai acquitted a 36-year-old man, a little over a decade after he was booked for cheating and raping a woman under the pretext of marriage.
The court observed that sending 'obscene messages' to a woman one is going to marry cannot be termed as insulting her modesty. The judgment stated that sending "obscene messages" during the premarital period in fact "may give happiness".
"If at all those are not liked by the other side, it has discretion with it to convey its displeasure to the other side, and the other side generally avoids a repeat of such a mistake. The purpose was to put up his expectation before her, to arouse her with similar feeling of sex, which may give happiness even to her, etc. But in no way those SMSs can be said as were sent to insult her modesty," the court said.
According to the reports from TOI, the woman had lodged an FIR in 2010. The couple had met on a matrimonial site in 2007 and tried to marry despite opposition from the mother of the accused.
The mother refused to let the son stay in either of their homes once he told her about his plans to go ahead with the marriage. This led to the accused man pulling the plug on the relationship in 2010.
The court, while acquitting the man of rape charges, said breaking the promise to marry someone cannot be termed cheating or rape.
The judge stated that it was not mandatory for the woman to have allowed the accused to have a physical relationship with her prior to the wedding.
The woman opted for sex, believing blindly that they would tie the knot, despite her being aware of opposition from the family of the accused, the court said.
It observed that the duo were in a relationship for two years and the accused had first taken a house on rent for the couple to stay and then redone a flat belonging to his family.
The court said, "He had even been to Arya Samaj Hall with mangalsutra... It is certainly not the case of false promise of marriage. It is the case of failure to make substantial efforts."
The court said, "Even after respecting emotions of the informant (woman), respecting her fighting for justice for 11 years or more, this court is of humble opinion that this is not a case which would show that the offence of rape has been committed."