Supreme Court: Physical Relationships Should Not Be Entered Into Without Trust and Commitment Before Marriage
Supreme Court: Physical Relationships Should Not Be Entered Into Without Trust and Commitment Before Marriage
Bench says partners are “total strangers” before marriage, urges caution in trusting promises, as court explores mediation and settlement in alleged false-marriage case.
The Supreme Court on Monday made sharp observations on pre-marital physical relationships, cautioning individuals against placing complete trust in each other before marriage. The remarks came during a bail hearing in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation on the promise of marriage.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that before marriage, a boy and a girl are essentially “total strangers” and should be careful in engaging in physical relationships, even when the relationship is consensual.
“It’s consensual. We may be old-fashioned but a boy and girl before marriage are total strangers. They should be circumspect in indulging in physical relationships before marriage,” the bench observed.
Justice Nagarathna added that the court found it difficult to understand why couples enter into physical relationships before marriage if they are uncertain about trust.
“Whatever may be the thick and thin of their relationship, we fail to understand how they can be indulging in physical relationship before marriage. Maybe we are old-fashioned but you must be very careful, nobody should believe anybody before marriage,” she said.
The case relates to a woman’s complaint that the accused persuaded her to travel to Dubai on the promise of marriage, where he allegedly established physical relations with her. She also claimed that he recorded private videos without her permission and later threatened to circulate them.
According to the complaint, she subsequently discovered that the man had married another woman in Punjab in January 2024, raising questions about whether the promise of marriage was deceptive from the beginning.
Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court had earlier denied bail to the accused. The High Court, in its order, reportedly noted that the promise of marriage appeared misleading, particularly since the accused was already married and had remarried.
The accused has now approached the Supreme Court seeking bail. During the hearing, the bench questioned the complainant’s decision to travel abroad and suggested that the matter appeared to involve a consensual relationship.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that such cases may not always be suitable for conviction when consent is involved and indicated that mediation could be a more appropriate route.
“She should not have gone before marriage if she was so strict about it. We will send them to mediation. These are not cases which are to be tried and convicted when there is consensual relationship,” the bench said.
The court also directed the accused’s counsel to explore the possibility of a settlement and suggested compensation as part of resolving the dispute. The matter has been posted for further hearing on Wednesday, when the views of both sides are expected to be recorded.
