look news india
The Bombay High Court on Friday (02 August) observed that a man arranging a rented house for a woman does not necessarily mean his intention to marry but rather it shows his intention to be readily available for her pleasure. The Bombay High Court refused to accept the petitioner's argument that the fact that he had arranged a rented house for the complainant proves his intention to marry her.
Bombay High Court division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale said that 'finding a house on rent for the victim does not indicate the intention to marry, but the petitioner's intention is to keep the victim available for his pleasure. The bench was hearing a petition by a resident of Shivdi to quash the FIR lodged against him.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner wanted to marry the victim and therefore he arranged a rented house for her. The bench said that this is just a case of breach of promise. And it has been tried to prove that this is not a case of false promise of marriage. The petitioner did not have any intention to marry her from the beginning. The brief description of the case is as follows: The victim was an acquaintance of the petitioner and was divorced. She lived in Palghar with her minor son.
Based on the applicant's identity, she got the role of a junior artist in a TV show. They became good friends and the petitioner assured to take care of her son from her previous marriage. The applicant had sexual relations with the victim. The relationship between the two started in March 2016. In 2018, the petitioner rented a house in Bhayander. Where he used to stay with her for two or three days a week. Their relationship continued. However, when the victim asked the petitioner to fulfil his promise of marrying her, he allegedly assaulted her and she left the rented house.
Thereafter the applicant apologised to her and promised to marry her soon, the victim moved to another rented house arranged by the applicant and the relationship between the two continued. When the victim became pregnant the appellant advised her to have an abortion. When the victim's child was born, the appellant refused to marry her and also denied that he was the father of the child.
