A judge in the Indian capital, Delhi, has said that pre-marital sex is “immoral” and against the “tenets of every religion”.Judge Virender Bhat made the remarks after ruling that sex between two adults on the promise of marriage did not amount to rape.
This holds for rape victim not rapist as ipsofacto obvious from the judgement.
“In my opinion, every act of sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape, if the assurance or promise is not fulfilled later on by the boy,” Judge Bhat was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India.
Whether this judgement will not promote the such crimes which are committed by luring the victims.
When a grown up, educated and office-going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter’s promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril. She must be taken to understand the consequences of her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise.
According to judge ,rape victim is alone accountable for such criminal event not rapist and even a common man can understand that what is right and what is wrong.Whether to lure is not a kind of force.
“He may or may not do so. She must understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in the world allows pre-marital sex,” the judge added.
Why the rapist shouldn’t understand these Talisman as taught by judge to rape victim?
In 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed a number of cases against a Tamil actress who spoke in support of the right of women to have pre-marital sex. The court also endorsed the right of to live together.
Whether apex court was followed? if not followed why?