Some women use law as weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta and tend to convert consensual physical relations as an incident of rape may be out of anger and frustration after breakup thereby defeating the very purpose of the provision (making physical relations with false promise of marriage an offence), the Delhi High Court has remarked.

Justice Pratibha Rani said so while emphasising the need for "a clear demarcation between the rape and consensual sex especially in the case where complaint is that consent was given on promise to marry".

The high court made the remarks while dismissing a woman's leave to appeal against the acquittal of a man, her live-in partner, who she later accused of rape on false promise of marriage

The woman, identified as GS, had challenged the March, 2016 order of trial court which had acquitted the man.

Interestingly, the man was acquitted after GS herself stated on oath that she lodged a complaint of rape out of some misunderstanding.

Not only that. The woman had first moved an application for cancellation of FIR. She went till Supreme Court for the quashing of FIR. When the same was not allowed, she gave a statement during trial that the physical relationship was consensual and she is now married to the accused.

This led trial court into acquitting the man.

Later, she approached the high court saying she was forced to make the statement in favour of the accused, who she had befriended on Facebook in March, 2013.

This petition came to be dismissed by Justice Rani.

"it is not a case where on the date of her examination during trial by exercising some influence or pressure, she was persuaded to make a statement favouring the accused. Prior to that they had already approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR. The prosecutrix in this case is a matured lady who was aged about 27 years at the time of registration of FIR. She was having friendly relations with the respondent No.2 since the year 2013 and as per the FIR she had given consent to have physical intimacy on the promise of respondent No.2 to marry her," the high court noted.

"In the leave petition the factum of marriage on 29th November, 2015 between the parties is admitted. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that she was misled to make a statement before the Court on 21st March, 2016 which led to the acquittal of the respondent No.2.

"This Court had observed on number of occasions that the number of cases where both persons, out of their own will and choice, develop consensual physical relationship, when the relationship breaks due to some reason, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta. They tend to convert such consensual acts as an incident of rape may be out of anger and frustration thereby defeating the very purpose of the provision. This requires a clear demarcation between the rape and consensual sex especially in the case where complaint is that consent was given on promise to marry," said Justice Rani.

Read Judgment Here