In a significant observation, the Bombay High Court has refused to accept the ‘astrological incompatibility’ as a valid reason for a Badlapur resident to resile from his promise to marry and to get himself cleared of the rape charges under the guise of the false promise of marriage.
33-year old Avishek Mitra from Badlapur had moved Bombay High Court after his plea to drop the rape charges against him was rejected by an additional sessions judge at Dindoshi.
The complainant alleged that the two knew each other since 2012 and used to work together in a five-star hotel in Mumbai. The complaint further stated that Avishek exploited her emotionally to have a physical relationship with her under the false promise of marriage.
It was alleged that when she conceived, the accused asked her to abort, promising her to marry after two years. She lodged the complaint on December 28, 2012, after he started avoiding her.
After the assistant commissioner referred the couple for counselling, Avishek appeared along with her parents On January 4, 2013, and agreed to marry the complainant. She withdrew the complaint within two days. But on January 18, 2013, the accused wrote to the counsellor to backstep from the marriage.
Eventually, the woman filed a fresh complaint. A charge sheet was filed and the accused moved High Court after his plea for discharge was rejected in the trial court.
Avishek’s counsel argued that the material on record did not suggest that there was absolutely no intent on his part to marry the complainant when he entered upon the relationship, nor could it be suggested that the promise to marry was false.
He added that at the most it could be regarded as a case of breach of promise on account of astrological incompatibility, since the horoscopes of the two did not match.
“It is apparent that the applicant in the guise of astrological incompatibility of the horoscopes avoided the promise. Thus, I am convinced that the material on record suggests, it is a case of false promise to marry which apparently vitiates the complainant’s consent,” stated the single bench of Justice Sandeep Shinde while refusing to accept his contention.
He further noted, “In the case in hand, there is sufficient material to suggest that since inception, the applicant had no intention of upholding his promise to marry the complainant.”
“Prima-facie, I am of the view that the applicant prevailed over the complainant to withdraw her first complaint by promising that he would marry her. However, his intentions were otherwise. Had the intentions been bonafide and true, the applicant would not have addressed a letter to Mr Parulekar (counsellor) and resiled from his promise to marry the complainant,” Justice Shinde added.
