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

Himachal 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.2015 SCC OnLine HP 1896, decided on 07.08.2015

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 − fourteen =