Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         








List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Position of False Promise to Marriage

 08-Jan-2024

Source: Supreme Court

Introduction

Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal recently held that an allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage.

  • Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Ajeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

What is the Background of Ajeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case?

  • The victim, the daughter of the third respondent, was studying in Lucknow for coaching in Banking. Her age was 25 years.
  • The third respondent stated that the appellant was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi.
  • They met and developed a love for each other.
  • The appellant assured the victim to marry her.
  • When the third respondent approached the appellant’s father and brother with the proposal of marriage, they declined the same.
  • Thereafter, under the pressure exerted by the victim, the appellant got prepared a certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir.
  • The third respondent alleged that appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim by giving her a false promise of marriage.
  • Respondent alleged that certificate of marriage was got prepared by the appellant from Arya Samaj Mandir to put pressure on the victim.
  • The appellant left the victim in her house on 22nd April 2015 and has never returned to take her back.
  • The appellant approached the High Court of Allahabad to quash these allegations against him, however the HC declined to do the same.

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • The court observed there is no sufficient evidence to prove the case of physical relation of false promise to marry against the appellant.
  • The court allowed the appeal.

What is False Promise to Marry in Indian Penal Code?

  • About:
    • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) nowhere defines such an offence i.e., having sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means rather it is dealt with by two provisions cumulatively which are Section 375 and Section 90.
    • Section 375 defines rape whereas Section 90 provides for Consent known to be given under fear or misconception.
  • Landmark Case:
    • The Supreme Court (SC) in Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2022) observed that there is a distinction between a false promise to marriage and a breach of promise as:
      • False Promise: Given by the maker on the understanding that it will be broken.
      • Breach of Promise: It is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled i.e., if a man can prove that he intended to marry the woman before he entered a sexual relationship with her but later is unable to marry her for any reason not legally punishable.

What is Provision Related to False Promise to Marry under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)?

  • BNS has a separate provision punishing the act of false promise to marry.
    • Section 69 of BNS provides punishment for Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.
    • It states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
    • Explanation— “deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.

Mercantile Law

Non-Mentioning of Prayer in Arbitration Petition

 08-Jan-2024

Source: Delhi High Court

Introduction

Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna recently held that if a party does not mention prayer in the application presented under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), it turns the application invalid.

  • Delhi High Court gave this judgment in the case of Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited.

What is the Background of Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited?

  • The appellant filed the first petition recklessly under Section 34 of A&C Act to match the limitation period of 3 months and 30 days as mentioned in the act for filing such petition.
  • The appellant omitted to mention the prayer during filing it.
  • The appellant then re-filed the petition to cure the defects of the original petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • The court observed that a Petition under Section 34 of A&C Act without a prayer to set aside the impugned Award, cannot be considered as a valid petition as such petitions would merely amount to empty submissions without relief.
    • Without there being any Prayer, it cannot be deciphered what relief is being sought on the basis of the averments made in the Petition.
    • Thus, without seeking relief, the Petition at the outset is not maintainable rendering it to be non-est.
  • The DHC held that such incomplete Petitions without a prayer clause cannot be accepted as a valid filing as the time limit for filing objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act is inelastic.
    • Thus, it is beyond any doubt that a complete petition has to be filed within this time frame of 3 months and 30 days under Section 34(3) of the Act 1996, which the appellant has failed to do.
  • The court dismissed the appeal.

What are the Landmark Cases on Mentioning of Prayer in Petition?

  • Trojan & Co. Ltd v. Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar (1953):
    • The Supreme Court held that the prayer clause in a plaint indicates the relief that is sought by the filing party and the court is not entitled to grant a relief that was not asked for.
    • Thus, no relief can be granted without a corresponding prayer in the prayer paragraph.
  • Bharat Amratlal Kothari & Anr. v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors (2010):
    • SC observed the importance of mentioning prayer to ask the relief.

What is Legal Provision Involved in the Case?

  • Section 34: Application for setting aside arbitral awards.
    • (1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3).
    • (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if-
      • (a) the party making the application [establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that]-
        • (i) a party was under some incapacity, or
        • (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
        • (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
        • (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
          • Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
        • (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Past; or
        • (b) the court finds that-
          • (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
          • (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
          • Explanation 1.-For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,- (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
          • Explanation 2.-For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.
    • (2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.
    • (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.
    • (4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
    • (5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.
    • (6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party.