The Madras High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, quashed a series of rape cases and ruling that consensual sexual relationships between adults that end acrimoniously cannot be prosecuted as rape solely based on an unfulfilled promise of marriage.
The verdict, issued on 13 November, draws a critical legal distinction between a “false promise” made with malicious intent from the outset and a subsequent “breach of promise” arising from a failed relationship.
The court was hearing petitions to dismiss First Information Reports (FIRs) filed by women in 2024 after their relationships ended.
The complainants had alleged that their consent was vitiated as it was given based on a promise to marry that was never intended to be kept. In its ruling, the bench scrutinised the nature of the relationships and the circumstances of the breakups.
It concluded that the evidence pointed to relationships that began consensually and soured over time, rather than a premeditated plan to deceive. The court stated, “A mere breach of a promise to marry cannot be construed as a false promise. A case of a sour relationship is being converted into a case of rape.”
The prosecution acknowledged the utility of the judgment in safeguarding the legal process. A state prosecutor noted that it helps “prevent the misuse of serious legal provisions” designed to protect victims of genuine sexual violence, ensuring that the courts are not clogged with cases of personal grievance.
Defence lawyers for the appellants celebrated the decision, with one stating it was a “victory for justice and protects individuals from malicious prosecutions arising from failed relationships.”
This ruling arrives in the context of a reported 25 per cent increase in false or malicious filings under rape and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2025.
It aligns with a 2023 Supreme Court clarification that emphasised the need to establish a mala fide intention from the very beginning of a relationship to prove a “false promise.”
However, the judgment has raised concerns among some women’s rights advocates, who fear it may inadvertently discourage genuine victims from seeking justice if their consent was intrinsically linked to a promise that was later cynically broken.
The High Court’s decision is expected to set a precedent for lower courts, promoting greater scrutiny in such cases while underscoring the need for sensitive handling to avoid denying justice to true survivors of sexual deceit.
Written by Were Kelly
Sources: LiveLaw (livelaw.in), SC Observer (scobserver.in).
