Bombay High Court: While deciding the instant case, the bench comprising of Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J. held that every breach of promise to marry cannot be said to be either a cheating or rape. The Court further held that to keep physical relationship or not is a choice of both the parties. The Court after listening the arguments from both sides, stated that even if there is bonafide promise to marry and the girl chooses to keep sexual relationship with that person and if a boy withdraws his promise, as they are not psychologically compatible with each other, then it cannot bring that particular act within the purport of offence under section 375 of IPC i.e., rape.
The Court decided that anticipatory bail can be granted in such cases after considering all the requisite factors. Where a couple is in love with each other, they may have sexual relationship. Realizing that they are not compatible and sometimes love between the parties is lost and their relationship dries gradually, then earlier physical relationship cannot said to be rape. The Court further observed that marriage is not only based on physical compatibility but also on emotional and psychological bonding. In the present case, the four years sexual relationship on the promise to marry cannot be considered as rape if such promise is breached because a major and educated girl is expected to know the demand of her body and to understand the consequences of getting into sexual relationship.Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Anticipatory 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 348, decided on 12-03-2014