The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of cheating after breaking an alleged promise of marriage. The court ruled that a nine-year consensual relationship between two consenting adults cannot be treated as cheating, characterizing the dispute as a case of “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
In an order passed on May 13, a division bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed that the man had simply chosen “a different path” after nearly a decade together.
“There being a consensual relationship between the parties, we hold that the present case appears to be a case of hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” the High Court bench stated. “For whatever reason, the attraction and love the respondent had for the appellant appear to have fizzled out. The going of one of the parties on a different path, after 9 years of consensual relationship, cannot be said to be a case of cheating.”
A Nine-Year Consensual Relationship
The legal battle stems from an appeal filed by the woman challenging a November 2025 trial court order, which had acquitted the man of all charges.
According to court records, the woman and her former partner had known each other since their school days. After attaining majority, they entered into a physical relationship that lasted for nine years.
The woman claimed that she consented to the physical relationship because the man had promised to marry her. However, she alleged that he subsequently informed her that his marriage had been arranged with another girl and that a ring ceremony had already been solemnized.
The Legal Arguments: Cheating vs. Heartbreak
During the High Court hearing, advocate R Sarmah, representing the woman, conceded that a case of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not made out against the man.
However, Sarmah argued that the man’s broken promise of marriage was sufficient to establish a case of cheating under Section 417 of the IPC. He urged the court to set aside the previous trial court judgment and convict the man under this section.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor countered this argument, submitting that because the woman herself admitted no case of rape had occurred, the allegation of cheating based on a promise of marriage could not be legally sustained.
Why the Court Dismissed the Case
The High Court ultimate sided with the defense, highlighting key aspects of the relationship’s timeline and nature:
- No Initial Bad Faith: The court noted there was no denial by the woman that the relationship began without any bad-faith promise of marriage at its very inception.
- Consensual Nature: Both parties were consenting adults who engaged in a physical relationship for nearly a decade.
- Absence of Rape Allegations: Since no case of rape was alleged, the court ruled it could not find the man guilty of criminal cheating simply because the relationship ended.
The bench concluded that while the mutual attraction and love between the two adults had “fizzled out” over time, ending a long-term relationship to walk a different path does not constitute a criminal offense under Indian law.
