Originally posted by chal_phek_matAccording to what the Supreme Court of India thinks, these serials are a series of Rape's., i.e a married man having an S*x with a unmarried woman
|Sex with woman on promise of marriage is rape: SC |
NEW DELHI: Love-making by a married man with a woman after making her believe that he was unmarried or on the promise of marriage is rape, the Supreme Court has ruled.
"Since, he was already married, the subsequent marriage, if any, has no sanctity in law and is void ab-initio (illegal from the inception)," a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam observed in a judgement.
The apex court rejected the argument of the convict Bhupinder Singh, an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, that since the victim Manjit Kaur had consented to sex despite knowing his marital status, the ingredients of Section 376 (rape) would not apply in his case.
In this case, a sessions court in Chandigarh had convicted and sentenced Bhupinder Singh to seven years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs 10,000 on Bhupinder Singh on charges of fathering Kaur's child despite the fact that he was already married and having kids.
It was the case of the victim that she had married Singh after the latter made her believe that he was unmarried and fathered her child.
But later she came to know that he was already married and had kids through his first wife.
Singh on his part denied having married Kaur, but on the basis of the various documents, the sessions court sentenced him to seven years RI.
He appealed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years on the premise that Kaur had consented to sex, knowing fully well that Singh was married.
The High Court had also ordered him to pay Rs one lakh compensation to the victim, failing which he would have to serve the original sentence imposed by the Sessions court.
Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the High Court, Singh had filed an appeal in the apex court, which rejected his plea.
If you go by this article, perhaps Ekta comes out looking a Genius, superintelligent as compared to .........................
Not strictly to do with the topic in question, but this ruling really disturbed me.......
If she consented, sorry - but in my book that is not rape.
the guy may be an adulterer but not a rapist. - so the judge and court are completely bonkers!
As for the alleged victim - I have no sympathy whatsoever for her - if you indulge in "relations" (so no one here can be offended and offering full deference to ever-vigilant Mods) without using birth control - deal with the consequences like a woman - not a weeping willow.
If it's child maintenance she was after - call a spade a spade and make the appropriate claim.
Personally, I think such a ruling was made to somehow safeguard the alleged victim's reputation - by showing her to have been misled.
I'm sure there are plenty of women out there that have been "misled" by married men as to the future of their relationship. That doesnt make them rape victims.
A woman scorned is the moral that comes to mind............