A man who concealed his marital status to marry a second woman has been awarded seven years’ rigorous imprisonment by the Delhi High Court, which said it was sufficient to deter him from indulging in such “sexual adventurism in future”.
Convicted for rape
Declaring his marriage to the victim as void, the Bench convicted him of rape.
The victim, who is differently abled, got married to Mahendra at an Arya Samaj temple here in 2010 after he responded to a newspaper advertisement inviting proposals from grooms interested in living at her father’s house.
The victim and Mahendra consummated the marriage but she started noticing that he would stay away from home for days at length and not return at night.
In August 2013, she registered a complaint at Vasant Kunj police station stating that Mahendra had contracted marriage with her by fraudulently presenting his first wife as his sister.
In the complaint, she claim to have discovered Mahendra with another woman, with a daughter, from a news item that aired on television. However, Mahendra contended that he was never married before and was only in a live-in relationship with the other woman. He said his marriage with the victim was perfectly valid.
Property document
Taking note of a property document showing Mahendra and the other woman as husband and wife, a Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice S.P. Garg refused to accept the argument that he was in a live-in relationship with the woman.
The Bench, however, said it was difficult to believe that the victim was “entirely unaware of the earlier subsisting marriage”. It also questioned the victim’s belated filing of complaint — nearly two years after her marriage.
The Bench quashed the life imprisonment awarded to Mahendra by a local court here in 2016, saying it was “needlessly harsh”. It said the victim maintained a normal sexual relationship with Mahendra of her own will and volition, and with full consent.
“There is no allegation, at any point in the proceedings, of Mahendra having compelled, far less forced, ‘M’ [the victim] to submit to his sexual overtures,” the Bench said, remarking that in the peculiar circumstances of the case the punishment of seven years’ imprisonment was sufficient.