Supreme Court Observes Caution in Pre-Marital Relationships While Hearing Bail Plea in Rape Case
New Delhi, February 16 2026 — The Supreme Court of India on Monday made strong observations on pre-marital relationships while hearing a bail plea in a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage. The court remarked that an unmarried man and woman are “total strangers” in the eyes of law and society and should exercise caution before entering into physical relationships prior to marriage.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan during arguments on a petition filed by a man seeking bail after being accused of sexual exploitation based on an alleged false assurance of marriage.
Context of the Case
The case stems from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she met the accused through a matrimonial website in 2022. According to her statement, the man promised to marry her and, on that assurance, established physical relations with her on multiple occasions, first in Delhi and later during a trip to Dubai.
The woman further alleged that during their time in Dubai, intimate videos were recorded without her consent and that she was later threatened with their circulation. She also claimed that she subsequently discovered the man had already married another woman and later entered into a second marriage in January 2024 in Punjab.
Based on these allegations, criminal proceedings were initiated. Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court earlier rejected the accused’s request for bail, citing prima facie indications that the promise of marriage may have been false from the outset.
Supreme Court’s Observations
While hearing the bail plea, the Supreme Court bench questioned the nature of the relationship and the decisions taken by both parties. Justice Nagarathna observed that regardless of emotional closeness, individuals should be careful before engaging in physical intimacy prior to marriage.
“We may be old-fashioned, but a boy and a girl before marriage are total strangers. They should be circumspect in indulging in physical relationships before marriage,” the bench remarked.
The court also questioned the complainant’s decision to travel abroad with the accused, noting that the circumstances appeared to point toward a consensual relationship. Justice Nagarathna asked why it was necessary for the woman to travel to Dubai if she was strict about marriage conditions.
“It appears to be a case of consensual relationship. These are not cases which are to be tried and convicted when there is a consensual relationship,” the judge observed, while clarifying that each case must be assessed on its specific facts.
Discussion on Consent and False Promise
Cases involving allegations of sexual relations on the false promise of marriage have frequently come before Indian courts. Legal precedents have established that such allegations must be carefully examined to determine whether consent was obtained through deception or whether the relationship was consensual and later turned sour.
The Delhi High Court, while denying bail earlier, had taken the view that the promise of marriage appeared to be false from the beginning, particularly in light of the accused already being married at the relevant time.
However, during the Supreme Court hearing, the bench signalled that criminal prosecution may not always be the appropriate route in cases where mutual consent is evident, even if the relationship later breaks down. The court stressed the importance of distinguishing between genuine criminal conduct and disputes arising out of personal relationships.
Mediation and Possible Settlement
In a notable development, the Supreme Court suggested exploring mediation as an alternative means of resolution. The bench indicated that such matters, when rooted in personal relationships and mutual consent, may be better addressed through settlement rather than prolonged criminal trials.
Justice Nagarathna asked counsel for the accused to consider paying some form of compensation to the woman and bringing closure to the dispute. The court also directed the woman’s counsel to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties.
The matter has been posted for further hearing later this week, during which the court is expected to assess whether both sides are open to mediation and what form a potential settlement could take.
Broader Legal and Social Implications
The court’s remarks have sparked discussion among legal experts and social commentators. Some view the observations as a reminder that adults must exercise personal responsibility in pre-marital relationships, while others caution that such comments should not undermine protections against sexual exploitation or coercion.
Legal analysts note that Indian courts have consistently held that consent obtained through a false promise of marriage can amount to rape if it is shown that the promise was never intended to be fulfilled. At the same time, courts have also warned against the misuse of criminal law in cases involving pre-marital relationships that later deteriorate.
The Supreme Court’s emphasis on mediation reflects a broader judicial trend toward alternative dispute resolution in cases where criminal proceedings may not serve the interests of justice or social harmony.
What Lies Ahead
As the case returns to the Supreme Court later this week, the focus will be on whether a negotiated settlement is possible and whether bail should be granted to the accused. The court’s final decision is likely to hinge on its assessment of consent, intent, and the credibility of allegations raised by both parties.
Beyond the immediate case, the observations underscore the judiciary’s continuing effort to balance individual autonomy, legal accountability, and the appropriate use of criminal law in matters involving pre-marital relationships. The outcome may further clarify how courts approach cases involving promises of marriage, consent, and allegations of sexual exploitation in contemporary India.
