In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Rajasthan High Court order that directed the wife of a rape accused to remain in India as a “collateral” condition for allowing her husband to travel abroad for employment. The apex court observed that the woman, currently employed in the United States, was neither an accused nor a party to the case and yet was restrained from leaving the country.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the Rajasthan government on the appeal filed by the accused, a software engineer, who is facing prosecution for allegedly raping a woman on the pretext of marriage. The Supreme Court further permitted the man to travel abroad upon furnishing a surety of ₹2 lakh.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ashwani Dubey submitted that the high court’s directive suffered from “procedural impropriety” and “legal perversity”, as no notice had been issued to the wife and she had not been heard before the order was passed. “The wife, who is neither accused nor heard, is restrained from travelling abroad, purely to offset a hypothetical apprehension that the husband will abscond,” Dubey argued.
The plea filed before the top court contended that the high court’s condition violated the woman’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty. It also stressed that the accused, an Indian citizen holding a valid passport, was willing to submit to the jurisdiction of Indian courts and remain under the supervision of the Consulate General in the US.
The petitioner assured the bench that he was willing to state on oath that he would appear for trial whenever required and that there was no risk of delay or absconding.
The case stems from an FIR lodged at Christianganj Police Station in Ajmer, where the accused was booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, including false promises of marriage or employment. The complainant alleged that the accused had met her on a matrimonial site and maintained a relationship over four years under the false promise of marriage.
After securing anticipatory bail, the accused sought permission from the trial court to travel abroad for employment. When the trial court rejected his plea, he approached the Rajasthan High Court. The high court permitted his travel but made it conditional on his wife’s continued presence in India — a condition now stayed by the Supreme Court.
