The case involves a student from Baptist College, Kohima (the Respondent) and her lecturer (the Appellant). The Appellant frequently visited the Respondent’s home and confessed his love for her. Believing his assurances of marriage, the Respondent entered into a physical relationship with him and later became pregnant. Fearing social stigma, she pressured him to marry her. In response, the Appellant performed a symbolic marriage ritual at his home by applying sindur (vermilion) to her forehead, making her believe they were legally married.

Afterward, the Appellant repeatedly urged the Respondent to terminate her pregnancy, citing his parents' disapproval. Under pressure, she underwent an abortion. A similar incident occurred in April 1994 when the Respondent again became pregnant, and this time, the Appellant even used a false name, "Bikash Gautan," at the nursing home where the abortion took place.

The Respondent genuinely believed she was the Appellant’s lawful wife and trusted his promises. However, when the Appellant secured a job at a government college in Silchar, she expected to accompany him. Instead, he outright denied their relationship. Feeling deceived, the Respondent filed a criminal case against him under Sections 312, 420, 493, 496, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition after the High Court of Assam at Guwahati refused to dismiss the charges against him.

Issues before the Court

The main issue in this case is whether the court has the legal authority to order the payment of interim compensation.

Arguments:

The Appellant argued that the case against him was unfair and should be dismissed for two main reasons. First, he claimed that he was unemployed because he had been fired from his job at the Government College in Silchar, which made it difficult for him to deal with legal proceedings. Second, he insisted that the entire case was fabricated with the intention of damaging his reputation rather than being based on actual facts.

You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]

Analysis of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and refused to dismiss the ongoing criminal case. While rejecting the petition, the Court also ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent interim maintenance of ₹1,000 per month.

The key legal issue was whether the Court had the authority to direct interim maintenance while the criminal trial was still ongoing. The Supreme Court ruled that it did have such power, as its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is broad and includes the ability to award compensation for violations of fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that rape is not just a criminal offense under penal law but also a severe violation of human rights, particularly the fundamental right to life.

Relying on the precedent set in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995), the Court clarified that a court trying a rape case has the power to grant compensation at the final stage and can also award interim compensation.

Concluding Remarks

This decision marks a progressive shift in legal thinking, recognizing the rights of victims and ensuring they receive financial support during the trial. It reinforces the idea that justice is not just about punishment for the accused but also about providing relief and dignity to victims.