. The court emphasized that not every breach of promise to marry can be considered a false pretext for sexual relations. The judgment came in a case where a man was acquitted of rape charges after the court found inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony and lack of evidence proving the sexual relationship was based solely on the promise of marriage. The court highlighted the importance of differentiating between cases of rape under false pretence of marriage and breach of promise to marry. It stressed the need for concrete evidence to establish that the accused had no intention of marrying the victim at the time of establishing a physical relationship. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal position on such cases and sets a precedent for future judgments. The court’s decision underscores the importance of clear and compelling evidence in cases of rape under false pretence of marriage. It also serves as a reminder that mere breach of promise to marry does not automatically constitute rape. This judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in India, where allegations of rape under false pretext of marriage are not uncommon. It reinforces the need for thorough investigation and evidence to prove such allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.