Kochi, July 8 (IANS) In a significant observation, the Kerala High Court pointed out the evolving nature of relationships among today’s young adults.
This change in relationships has led to an increasing number of rape allegations after the couples break up and marry others, it added.
“However, this does not always imply that one of the partners was forced into having a sexual relationship on a false promise to marry,” said Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
The court made these observations on Friday and granted bail to advocate Navaneeth. N. Nath, a Central Government panel counsel in Kerala, who was arrested in connection with a sexual abuse complaint made against him by a colleague, another lawyer.
Justice Thomas, while granting bail subject to some conditions, noted that even though the offences alleged are of a serious nature, the petitioner is not likely to flee from justice and has no criminal antecedents.
The allegation against Nath was that he had been in a relationship with his colleague, another lawyer, for over four years but in the end, he decided to marry another woman.
When the complainant learnt of this, she met Nath’s fiancee at a hotel and allegedly tried to commit suicide by slitting her veins.
When she told the police the reason for her action, Nath was arrested last month and he then moved for bail at the Kerala High Court.
Counsel for Nath told the court that his party had every intention of marrying her and that the sexual relationship between them, which subsisted for many years, was absolutely consensual and loving.
His further told the Court that they were aware from the beginning that their relationship may face roadblocks as they belonged to different faiths but the complainant, knowingly took her chances and continued in the relationship.
The Judge pointed out that since the case arose between a couple who had been in a relationship for over four years, the prosecution case may be affected by the Supreme Court decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v The State Of Maharashtra.
“What the Supreme Court held in Pramod’s case is that the long period of a relationship is indicative of an absence obtaining consent by promising to marry. In your (complainant) FIS (first information statement), nowhere is it indicated that you indulged in sex only with the belief that he is going to marry,” remarked the Justice.