Supreme Court Allows Amicable Settlement in Rape Case on False Promise of Marriage, Sparks Legal Debate
Apex Court closes case after both parties agree to compromise
Ruling highlights thin line between consent, coercion, and misuse of law
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: November 05, 2025 — In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a rape case filed on the allegation of sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage can, in appropriate circumstances, be settled amicably between the parties.
The Court made this observation while closing a case from Kerala, where both the complainant and the accused informed the bench that they had reached a compromise and wished to move on with their lives. The decision, delivered by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, has triggered wide discussion in legal and social circles.
While some see it as a pragmatic approach to consensual adult relationships, others worry it may dilute the seriousness of rape allegations.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman in Kerala, who alleged that she had been induced into a sexual relationship on the false assurance of marriage. She later accused the man of rape and cheating, claiming he had also taken money and gold from her.
During the proceedings, however, both parties informed the Supreme Court that they had reached an amicable settlement. The accused agreed to return the money and gold, and the complainant expressed her willingness to withdraw the case.
Court’s Observations
- Settlement permissible in certain cases: The Court clarified that while rape is a serious offence, cases involving consensual relationships between adults based on a promise of marriage may be treated differently.
- Focus on context: The bench distinguished between cases of genuine sexual assault and those arising from broken relationships or misunderstandings.
- Compromise not blanket rule: The Court emphasized that not all rape cases can be settled. Only those where the relationship was consensual and both parties are willing to compromise may qualify.
- Restitution matters: In this case, the accused’s willingness to return money and gold was considered part of the settlement.
Wider Legal Context
- In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Supreme Court held that sex on a false promise of marriage amounts to rape only if the promise was made with no intention of fulfilment from the beginning.
- In Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court distinguished between a breach of promise and a false promise, noting that not every failed relationship amounts to rape.
- High Courts across India have quashed similar cases when both parties were consenting adults and later chose to settle.
Why This Matters
- Clarifies legal position: Reinforces that not all cases of failed relationships should be criminalized as rape.
- Protects against misuse: The judgment acknowledges that the law should not be misused to settle personal scores.
- Encourages pragmatic solutions: By allowing settlements, the Court reduces unnecessary litigation and emotional trauma for both parties.
- Raises concerns: Critics argue that such settlements may undermine women’s rights and send a wrong message about accountability.
Expert Reactions
- Supportive voices: Some legal experts say the ruling reflects a realistic approach to modern relationships, where adults often enter consensual intimacy.
- Critical voices: Women’s rights activists caution that allowing settlements could normalize coercion and weaken the deterrent effect of rape laws.
- Balanced view: Many argue that each case must be judged on its facts and circumstances, with courts carefully distinguishing between genuine assault and consensual intimacy gone wrong.
Social Implications
- Changing relationships: With evolving social norms, courts are increasingly confronted with cases involving live-in relationships and promises of marriage.
- Stigma and honour: Families often pressure women to file cases when relationships break down, leading to criminalization of private disputes.
- Need for awareness: Greater public understanding of the difference between consent, coercion, and fraud is essential.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kerala case marks an important development in the interpretation of rape on the false promise of marriage. By allowing an amicable settlement, the Court has recognized the complexity of adult relationships while cautioning that such relief is not available in all cases.
The decision underscores the need for a balanced approach — protecting women from genuine exploitation while preventing misuse of criminal law in failed relationships. As debates continue, the ruling will likely influence how lower courts handle similar cases in the future.