The Court pointed out that merely because the petitioner provided monetary help to the woman, it cannot be said that they are married. Since the woman was already married, there is no case of breach of promise to marry either.
While examining the difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry, the Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., the extent of being physically involved with her on the false promise to marry in near future. The defacto-complainant being already married, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing the alleged offences.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.