Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Telangana High Court ruled that cohabitation based on deception, where a man falsely claims to be divorced from his first wife to establish a marital relationship with another woman, amounts to rape. The case involved an appeal against a Sessions Court order in a plea filed under Sections 11, 5, and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appellant sought a decree of nullity of her marriage with the respondent on the ground that he was not legally divorced from his first wife at the time of their marriage. The appellant also prayed for a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.1 crore as alimony. The trial court dismissed the petition, but the High Court overturned the decision, holding the respondent guilty under Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 63 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao observed that the respondent had misled the appellant into believing that he was legally single, thereby vitiating her consent for cohabitation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant contended that the respondent deliberately suppressed the fact of his existing marriage and fraudulently induced her into a marital relationship. She asserted that their marriage, solemnized on March 8, 2018, at Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple in Yadagirigutta, was based on deception, as the respondent had not lawfully dissolved his first marriage. The appellant alleged that the respondent was controlling, monitored her communications, and misappropriated funds from her salary account. The primary ground for the nullity of marriage was that the respondent falsely claimed to have obtained a customary divorce in 2008. She argued that the trial court erred in dismissing her claim without adequately examining the respondent’s assertion of customary divorce. The appellant also highlighted that the respondent’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2019 before the Family Court at Visakhapatnam contradicted his claim of being legally single. The respondent, in his defense, denied suppressing facts and asserted that his first wife suffered from acute ill-health, which led to their customary divorce with parental consent. He contended that the appellant was aware of his prior marriage and had even met his daughter. The respondent claimed that their marriage was arranged and not based on any fraudulent misrepresentation. He argued that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of his financial worth to substantiate her alimony claim. Despite conditional orders from the trial court, the respondent neither appeared nor submitted evidence to prove his customary divorce.

Court’s Judgment:

The Telangana High Court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the respondent had not provided any proof of his alleged customary divorce. The court observed that customary divorce must be substantiated through documentary or oral evidence, which the respondent failed to furnish. The judgment noted that despite multiple opportunities, the respondent declined to present evidence to prove the existence of such a custom within his community. The trial court, therefore, should have framed issues regarding the validity of the respondent’s customary divorce and examined them in light of the evidence. The High Court criticized the trial court for imputing constructive knowledge of the respondent’s divorce to the appellant without any factual basis. It rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the appellant should have inquired about the respondent’s first marriage before consenting to marriage. The High Court emphasized that the appellant’s consent for cohabitation was premised on a mistaken belief that the respondent was legally divorced. Under Section 375 of the IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of the BNS, consent obtained under such circumstances is vitiated, rendering the act punishable as rape. The court found that the trial court’s findings were both presumptuous and objectionable, particularly its remarks about the appellant “enjoying a luxurious life and squeezing money” from the respondent. Such observations were deemed irrelevant and prejudicial to the appellant’s case. The High Court ultimately set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the appeal, recognizing the fraudulent nature of the respondent’s actions and affirming the appellant’s right to legal recourse.