Introduction:

In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna, partially allowed a petition filed by Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani. The court quashed rape charges against him but directed him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to the child born out of his consensual relationship with the lady, based on her allegations that he lured her with the promise of marriage.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The complainant alleged that she was lured into a continued relationship with the petitioner based on his promise to marry her, resulting in a child. However, the petitioner desired to marry someone else. While the court acknowledged consensual relations cannot be termed as rape, it refused to quash the cheating charge against the petitioner, as he allegedly took advantage of the complainant’s strained marital relationship. The court also noted the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC based on allegations of threats made by the petitioner over four years.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice M Nagaprasanna, examining the DNA test results confirming the petitioner as the biological father, quashed the rape charges under Section 376 IPC but continued proceedings under sections 506, 417, and 420 of the Code. The court held that consensual acts, despite the promise of marriage, do not amount to rape, yet the petitioner’s actions in the context of the strained relationship could constitute cheating. Additionally, the court upheld the charge of criminal intimidation, considering the complainant’s allegations of threats made by the petitioner over a significant period.