The Bombay High Court recently refused to release a man accused of rape and cheating after citing astrological incompatibility as a reason to deny his promise to marry the complainant, with who he was in a relationship with (Avishek Mitra v. the State of Maharashtra).
The petitioner, Avishek Mitra, had filed a lawsuit in the High Court after the Mumbai Sessions Court refused to acquit him of the case arising from the First Information Report (FIR) registered on the basis of the woman’s complaint.
His argument was that the relationship between the applicant and the complainant couldn’t be continued further due to “astrological incompatibility.”
Refusing to grant the request, Justice Sandeep Shinde made a prima facie observation that “the applicant convinced the complainant to withdraw her first complaint by promising to marry her”.
The Court found it clear that the applicant, under the pretence of “astrological incompatibility of horoscopes,” avoided the promise.
According to the complainant, the two have known each other since 2012 as they have been in the same workplace. She asserted that the applicant had exploited her emotionally to get in a physical relationship with her under the false promise of contracting marriage.
She also claimed that she had aborted her child which she had conceived with the applicant when he assured her that he would marry her after two years. When the applicant began to avoid her, she filed a police complaint.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police referred the two for counselling. During the period of counselling, the applicant had assured to marry her and as a result, the complaint was withdrawn. But to the complainant’s surprise, the applicant wrote to the counsellor, withdrawing his intention to marry. After that, the complainant lodged a new complaint with the police, after which a charge sheet was filed.
Judge Shinde noted that the applicant’s intentions were untrue and not bonafide.
“If the intentions were true and bonafide, the applicant would not have written a letter to the counsellor and abandoned his promise to marry the complainant,” the order said.
“There is enough information to suggest that since inception, he had no intention of fulfilling his promise to marry the complainant,” Judge Shinde said.
