Indian judge says pre-marital sex 'against religion'

 
Couples in Mumbai Pre-marital relationships are still frowned upon by society in India

Related Stories

A judge in the Indian capital, Delhi, has said that pre-marital sex is "immoral" and against the "tenets of every religion".

Judge Virender Bhat made the remarks after ruling that sex between two adults on the promise of marriage did not amount to rape.

Pre-marital sex remains a cultural taboo in India.

Last year, a court in Delhi said live-in relationships were immoral and an "infamous product of Western culture".

Judge Bhat presides over a fast-track court set up in the Indian capital to dispose of cases relating to sexual offences against women.

He made his latest remarks while clearing a man employed with a multinational company of charges of rape.

The 29-year-old had been arrested after a woman working in a different company lodged a complaint of rape against him in 2011.

The woman alleged that the man had sex with her after promising marriage.

"In my opinion, every act of sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape, if the assurance or promise is not fulfilled later on by the boy," Judge Bhat was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India.

"When a grown up, educated and office-going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter's promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril. She must be taken to understand the consequences of her act and must know that there is no guarantee that the boy would fulfil his promise.

"He may or may not do so. She must understand that she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in the world allows pre-marital sex," the judge added.

In 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed a number of cases against a Tamil actress who spoke in support of the right of women to have pre-marital sex. The court also endorsed the right of unmarried couples to live together.

Actress Kushboo was accused of "outraging public decency" and 22 cases were filed against her in 2005.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 260.

    Religion and marriage is a MAN made thing and sex was going on LONG before both of them!

  • Comment number 259.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 258.

    Scientifically??? where does science come in to this discussion.

    Basically I think all those hundreds of years of British occupancy of India has left everything in somewhat of a muddle.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 257.

    #95 It is when a woman claims rape because she had sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, read the article. Although it isn't against the law to have pre-marital the woman was trying in on in a court of law because culturally it's frowned upon in India. The judge was actually being broad minded because of the culture he lives in.

  • Comment number 256.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 255.

    251 And here we go again
    The arguments are many and can only be summarised here.
    There is little evidence that homosexuality is anything other than a personal choice. There is no "gay" gene. There is no evidence from studies of twins. Many people switch sexuality frequently.

    Personal choice is OK but dont force the rest of society to accept your false premise.

    Sorry - out of characters

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 254.

    The issue here is consensual sex but breach of 'promise' by the man. It's the same issue if any customer pays the seller before s/he gets the item (mariage, in this case). If the women believed only in post-marital sex then she should not have agreed on the proposal in the first place!

    The judge must not pass comments or legal judgement based on his personal superstition or ignorance.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 253.

    Honour killings? Its okay to take a life but pre-marital sex is a sin? Nuts...the whole lot of them. They should 'think' above the belt.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 252.

    In the West the scenario goes I promise I won't oh dear (she cough splutter) sorry caught me by surprise, not very good etiquette but it happens. Naivety or never believe a man on heat.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 251.

    248.malcolm
    So what is this strong case? The arguments used against gay marriage are the same ones used against giving women the vote, educating women, inter-racial marriages etc, so unless you see all them as wrong too I see no argument except for fear of change. Allowing gay people to exist openly does not negatively impact your life, but denying it negtatively impacts theirs.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 250.

    An Indian judge saying such things is even more immoral, for, now there will be many more honour killings in the name of morality and religion in India.

    A judge is only a specialist in law, not a specialist in religions. In Hinduism, Lord Krishna not only indulged in pre-marital sex, he did so when he was a minor. This renders most of the gopikas guilty of statutory rape!

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 249.

    Yet another example of the total hypocrisy of organised religion
    "the root of all evil"

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 248.

    243 And here we go again

    It might be wise to be cautious about making societal changes when you have no idea of the consequences. The disaster of multi-culturalism is a good example of that.

    While the case against slavery is unanswerable, the case against institutionalising homosexuality in society is exceedingly strong but is censored by the chattering classes such that it cannot be discussed

  • rate this
    +25

    Comment number 247.

    Not only does the Indian Judge have no business imposing dogma on the country, he's wrong.
    Hindusim isn't gainst sex or nudity, if you read the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita etc. And Krisna had a harem.
    Also Jesus says nothing against sex, the Koran says little about dress codes, and that very liberal.
    Any repression of sex has been added later to control people.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 246.

    Now I wonder what do India law and Judges think about self-pleasure.
    Is it supported until the Indians get married?
    India says, Better Porn rather than pre.maritial sex... !?!??

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 245.

    This Judge clearly does NOT know what law is all about, doesn't know Indian history, never seem to have visited great INDIAN architectures like those in Konark or Khajuraho or read ancient Indian novels/books (even 'religious' ones like Ramayana, Mahabharata).

    The judge's naive perception about both morality and religion is dangerous to the society/country, particularly as a custodian of law.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 244.

    226.malcolm
    "historically for millenia and in all cultures, it was an abomination"

    Actually historically ss marriage was accepted and recognised by most cultures - not until the influence of puritancal christianity was it then deemed to be 'immoral'.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 243.

    As BBC is among the last bastions of Victorian England that clings to a false pretense of prudishness in regard to sex and other seedy matters of human existence it is hardly surprising that when the obvious is posted openly and frankly it must be deleted. What a miserable excuse for an organization BBC proves it is time and again.Want to talk about your sex pervert pedophile past employees BBC?

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 242.

    What a welcome breath of fresh air & truth in a world of moral compromise seemingly accelerating over time. Thank you indeed, Judge, and for your courage in knowingly being unpopular & out-of-step with so-called, modern, enlightened thinking. Furthermore, it is strengthened by the specific judgement you gave as well.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 241.

    226.malcolm
    "historically for millenia and in all cultures, it was an abomination"

    Just because something was historically so, doesn't make it right. For millenia, it was acceptable to keep slaves, few would argue that we should still have slaves because historically it was the norm.

 

Page 8 of 20

 

More India stories

RSS

Features

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.