Justice A.D. Maria Clete, Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that inducing a person into sexual intercourse by making a false promise of marriage constitutes a distinct civil wrong and actionable tortious conduct. The court clarified that such a claim provides an independent legal pathway to obtain civil remedies, such as monetary damages, which operate entirely separate from criminal prosecutions arising out of the same set of facts.

The Bench affirmed the concurrent findings of lower courts, holding that a prior criminal acquittal based on technical grounds does not undermine an independent civil suit. It noted that the scope of a tort claim for breach of promise focuses on whether consent was induced through misrepresentation, a question distinct from standard criminal trials or summary maintenance proceedings.

A Bench of Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed, “…The present claim is founded on the appellant's tortious conduct in inducing the respondent to consent to sexual intercourse by making a false promise of marriage and thereafter reneging on that promise. Consequently, the findings recorded in Ex. A2, as well as in Ex. B6, do not operate as a bar or constitute an impediment to the adjudication of the respondent's claim for damages based on tortious liability”.

“…The criminal Courts did not adjudicate on whether a false promise of marriage had obtained the plaintiff's consent. Therefore, the findings rendered in the criminal proceedings do not conclude or even substantially affect the issues arising in the present civil proceedings”, the Bench said.

Advocate R. Nandhakumar appeared for the appellant and Advocate M.N. Balakrishnan appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant approached her during her parents' absence and induced her into sexual intercourse on two specific occasions by extending a false promise that he would marry her.

Relying on the defendant's promise of marriage, the plaintiff entered into a relationship that resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a son. However, the defendant later refused to marry her. She initially pursued criminal proceedings, in which the defendant was convicted but later acquitted on appeal after the prosecution failed to prove she was below 16 years of age.

Maintenance proceedings also failed due to lack of proof of paternity. She subsequently filed a civil suit seeking ₹2 lakh in damages, which was decreed by the Trial Court in 2008 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court in 2012, leading to the present second appeal before the High Court.

Evaluating the legal issues, the court observed that the criminal acquittal was strictly based on a technical failure to prove minority rather than an exoneration on merits, meaning the criminal courts never adjudicated whether the defendant used a fraudulent promise of marriage to obtain consent.

“…It is well settled that findings recorded in criminal proceedings are neither binding on civil proceedings nor vice versa…”, the Bench noted.

“The injury suffered by the plaintiff is not capable of precise arithmetical calculation or commercial valuation. It is not a case involving pecuniary loss or loss of property that requires proof by accounts or documentary evidence. The injury complained of affects the plaintiff's dignity, reputation, mental peace, and emotional well-being. Such injury is essentially non-pecuniary. Though it cannot be measured with mathematical precision, it is nevertheless a legally recognised injury for which compensation may be awarded”, the Bench further observed.

Dealing with a belated limitation argument, the court applied Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, noting that the plaintiff was a minor when the cause of action arose and filed her indigent petition well within three years of attaining majority.

Accordingly, the Court held that the substantial questions of law must be answered against the appellant. Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and confirmed the decree for damages. The court ordered that the connected miscellaneous petition be closed and directed that no order as to costs shall be made.

Cause Title: V v. R S.A. No. 340 of 2013

Appearances:

Appellant: R. Nandhakumar, K.P. Jotheeswaran, Advocates.

Respondent: M.N. Balakrishnan, D.R. Arunkumar, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: