"Will Destroy Marriage Sanctity...": Why Court Junked Rape Case Against Man
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a rape case against a man after he married the woman he allegedly assaulted. Charges were dropped after the court said criminal proceedings against the man - now the rape survivor's husband - would 'destroy the sanctity of marriage'.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, legal news website Live Law said, attributed his decision to the 'peculiarity of the marriage' and, therefore, that his ruling could not be used as precedent to quash rape charges if the complainant and the accused 'reach a compromise'.
Justice Dhand also noted two Supreme Court judgement to this effects, in each of which rape charges against the man were dropped after the woman and he were married.
"Marriage is considered as a sacred union between two individuals - transcending physical, emotional, and spiritual bonds. According to ancient Hindu laws, marriage and its rituals are performed to pursue ' dharma ' (duty), ' artha ' (possession), and ' kama ' (physical desire)."
"... marriage is more than a ritual, which cannot be allowed to be destroyed by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner," the judge declared.
Proceeding with these charges, the court said, would 'disturb married life'.
The eyebrow-raising judgement came after the woman complained she entered into a physical relationship with the accused based on the latter's promise of marriage. However, after she became pregnant the man reportedly fed her abortion pills and refused further communication.
But between the time her complaint was filed and the court heard it, the man and woman were wed, and a petition was then made to quash the rape charges.
Meanwhile, earlier this month the Supreme Court said failed romantic relationships need not always mean sexual relations were forced on either party. The observation came as the top court heard a plea by a man to quash rape charges levelled by his former fiancee.
The woman's lawyer pointed out the relationship in question was 'arranged' and not 'romantic' in nature, thereby raising the question of 'consent'. The court countered, saying the situation had to be examined from both perspectives, and that it had "no attachment to any one gender".
The court eventually decided it would hear the man's plea further.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
44 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US SC clears way for deportation of several immigrants to South Sudan
The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger AP Washington The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the justices found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the court lifted his broader decision. The Trump administration has called the judge's finding a lawless act of defiance. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face imprisonment, torture and even death if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the US. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
US Supreme Court approves deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan
The decision by the conservative-dominated top court comes 10 days after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries that are not their own read more Journalists sit outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025. AFP Photo The US Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green light for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants stranded at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan. The decision by the conservative-dominated top court comes 10 days after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries that are not their own. The eight migrants were being flown to South Sudan from the US in May but ended up in Djibouti when a district court imposed a stay on third-country deportations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The court said migrants were not being given a 'meaningful opportunity' to contest removal. On June 23, the Supreme Court lifted the stay imposed by District Judge Brian Murphy, clearing the way for third-country deportations. But Murphy, an appointee of former president Joe Biden, said the case of the eight migrants who ended up in Djibouti was subject to a separate stay order he issued that had not been addressed by the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Supreme Court said its June 23 decision applied to both of the judge's orders. Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. 'What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,' Sotomayor said. 'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' she said. The US authorities have said that the eight men – two from Myanmar, two from Cuba, and one each from Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan – are convicted violent criminals. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Trump administration has defended third-country deportations as necessary since the home nations of some of those who are targeted for removal sometimes refuse to accept them. Donald Trump campaigned for president promising to expel millions of undocumented migrants from the United States, and he has taken a number of actions aimed at speeding up deportations since returning to the White House in January.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Sri Ram Sene's protest march stopped by police in Belagavi
Belagavi: Hundreds of Sri Ram Sene activists, led by their chief Pramod Mutalik, attempted to launch the 'Ingali Chalo' protest march from Belagavi on Thursday, condemning the recent assault on cow vigilantes at Ingali village in Hukkeri taluk. However, police detained the activists before the march could commence. The protest was in response to the incident where five Sri Ram Sene members were allegedly tied to a coconut tree and assaulted by locals in Ingali village. Belagavi police have since arrested four accused and registered a suo-motu case in connection with the attack. According to Belagavi superintendent of police Dr Bhimashankar Guled, the conflict was triggered after the activists allegedly entered the residence of a Muslim family, causing panic among women inside. He said this intrusion provoked the reaction from villagers. The SP also raised concerns about the background of one of the assaulted individuals, who is a rowdy sheeter, and questioned whether he officially represented the Sri Ram Sene. Rejecting the SP's version of events as 'false' and 'misleading,' Sri Ram Sene launched the 'Ingali Chalo' campaign. Protesters first formed a human chain at Rani Channamma Circle, raised slogans against the govt, and later marched to the deputy commissioner's office to submit a memorandum. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo As they proceeded toward Ingali, police detained several leaders, including district president Gangadhar Kulkarni and Ravikumar Kokitkar. Earlier, while addressing the gathering, Pramod Mutalik condemned the attack on SRS workers, stating, "This is not Pakistan or Afghanistan. Assaulting cow vigilantes in such a Taliban-style manner is unconstitutional. The govt must take strict action. If this repeats, the Hindu community will respond." In response to SP Guled's remarks questioning the involvement of a rowdy sheeter in the vigilante group, Mutalik defended the individual. "Today, police are branding even Hindu activists like Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat and Chakravarthy Sulibele as rowdies. This is an attempt to divert public attention from the real issue." He alleged that the administration is trying to protect the accused and suppress cow protection efforts by discrediting the activists.
