New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that before marriage, a boy and a girl are “strangers” and there must be circumspection before entering into a physical relationship.
The remarks came from a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) seeking bail, filed by a man accused of rape on the alleged false promise of marriage.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court, in an order passed on November 18, 2025, had denied him bail in an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC at Vasant Kunj North Police Station.
During the course of hearing, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench remarked that “maybe we are old fashioned, but before marriage a boy and a girl are strangers.”
It further observed that irrespective of the depth of their relationship, it was difficult to understand how parties could indulge in physical relations prior to marriage.
“One must be very careful. Nobody should believe anybody before marriage,” added the apex court.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant, aged about 30 years, met the petitioner through a matrimonial website in 2022.
Their interaction gradually developed into a relationship during which the petitioner-accused allegedly proposed marriage.
According to the prosecution, the first incident of sexual assault took place on November 1, 2023, when the complainant travelled from Madhya Pradesh to Delhi to meet the petitioner at IGI Airport.
He allegedly booked a hotel room in Mahipalpur and “forcibly established sexual relations on the pretext of marriage” and recorded intimate videos without her consent.
The FIR further alleged that on the petitioner’s insistence, the complainant-woman travelled to Dubai in February 2024, where he again established physical relations on the assurance of marriage and recorded nude videos.
The complainant later discovered that the petitioner was already married and had solemnised a second marriage in January 2024.
Opposing the bail plea before the Delhi High Court, the prosecution had argued that the allegations disclose “a consistent pattern of deception, manipulation and inducement” and involve threats of circulating private videos.
In its order refusing bail, the Delhi HC observed that the petitioner was already married and had again solemnised a second marriage during the subsistence of the relationship with the complainant.
It held that “despite being aware that marriage with the prosecutrix could never materialise and is legally impossible, the petitioner made false promises to marry her,” and that such facts, taken at face value, prima facie indicate that the promise “was not made in good faith but was false from inception”.
The Delhi High Court further noted that the “voluntariness of travel cannot, at this stage, negate the prosecutrix’s consistent allegation that every instance of intimacy was founded upon a false promise of marriage,” and dismissed the bail plea.
When the matter was taken up earlier in December 2025, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Delhi Police and the complainant.
While hearing the case on Monday, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench questioned why the complainant travelled abroad prior to marriage if she was particular about tying the knot.
It observed that such cases, where there is a consensual relationship, may not be suitable for trial and conviction and indicated that the possibility of mediation could be explored.
The SLP has now been listed on Wednesday to enable the parties to obtain further instructions and explore the possibility of settlement. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since February 6, 2025.
The chargesheet has already been filed and the trial is yet to commence.
(IANS)
