In the case the court was handling, a man was accused of rape for engaging in a sexual relationship with a lady after forging a phony marriage vow.

As per the recent ruling of the Gujarat High Court, any sexual relationship in which a man makes a commitment to marry a woman but then fails to follow through on it cannot be classified as rape.

According to Justice Divyesh Joshi, there is a growing number of consensual sexual relationships that end in rape. This trend coincides with the growth in false charges filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against husbands for cruelty towards their wives.

"Like the cases under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and under Section 498(A), the cases of consensual sexual relationship being later converted into allegations of rape are rapidly increasing," the judge said.

The Court emphasized that in situations of rape on promise of marriage, a man can only be found guilty if it can be demonstrated that the woman consented to a sexual relationship based only on the promise of marriage, and that the promise was made with no intention of keeping it.

The issue now is whether the accused may be found guilty of rape based just on a woman's statement that she was promised marriage by the accused. "No" is the response. A guy cannot be found guilty of rape in any situation when he promises a woman he will marry her but then backtracks. The Court stated in its judgment dated September 19 that "he can only be found guilty if it can be demonstrated that the woman consented to a sexual relationship because the promise to marry was made with no intention of keeping it."

Thus, it went on to drop accusations of rape against a man.

The Court further noted that it can be challenging to ascertain whether a girl's consent was solely motivated by the boy's promise of marriage or by their shared desire to be together when the girl, fully aware of the nature and consequences of the sexual act, gives her consent based on that promise and persists in the relationship for an extended length of time.

The man who was accused of rape was presenting a plea to the court asking for the criminal charges against him to be dropped.

His attorney contended that the initial information report (FIR) explicitly stated that the accused and the complainant had a romantic relationship that lasted for approximately 18 months.

Additionally, it was stated that the complainant willingly started a physical relationship with the defendant.

In response, the prosecution stated that the accused's aim to deceive the woman is a question of evidence that can only be taken into account during the trial phase.

The Court ruled that, after weighing the reasons, a single incidence of sexual assault accompanied by the victim's obvious resistance at the moment of the attempt qualifies as rape.

On the other hand, permission is relevant if a woman permits the act to go on for a while and then files a FIR after a disagreement. When consent is granted, particularly by a woman who has reached majority and is of legal age, the event can no longer be considered a rape.

Curiously, the Court also pointed out that the complaint in this instance contained a specific claim that the complainant, a woman, had gotten pregnant as a result of her sexual contact with the accused.

However, it discovered that the accused was not the child's biological father according to the Forensic Science Laboratory's (FSL) DNA testing.

The Court ruled that this result totally refuted the prosecution's case.

It thus dismissed the criminal case against the accused guy and accepted his plea.