Prime responsibility of a woman in a relationship is to protect her own modesty and dignity

Pradesh High Court- Granting bail to the petitioner in a FIR filed under Sections 376
and 313 of Indian Penal Code, a bench of T.S Chauhan J., after perusal of the
records stated that it cannot be accepted that petitioner would in any manner
interfere with the trial of the case. The Court also referred to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra (2011) 1
SCC 694 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 wherein the Supreme Court laid parameters
for grant of bail.

In the instant
case, the complainant is a divorcee who got divorce in 2014. She came in
contact with the petitioner, who too is married and is alleged to have deceived
the complainant by stating that he too is divorced. They have been in physical
relationship since the year 2011 and now the complainant has accused the
petitioner for subjecting her to sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage.

The Court after
perusal of the records observed that the case seems to be a classical example
where the relationship between the parties has gone sour. Making further
observations, the Court stated that “it is ultimately the woman herself who is
the protector of her own body and therefore, her prime responsibility to ensure
that in the relationship, protects her own dignity and modesty. Once the
prosecutrix knew that the petitioner is a married man, it was for her to
restrain herself and not indulge in intimate activities. No doubt, it is the
responsibility, moral and ethical both, on the part of man not to exploit any
woman by compelling or inducing her for sexual relationship”. [Dushyant Kumar v. State of H.P.,  decided on

Source: Legal news India

Leave a Reply