In Mohd. Amaan Malik vs The State Govt Nct Of Delhi & Anr. the Delhi High Court noted a trend in sexual offence cases where “the accused marries the victim to evade the criminal charges against him, only to abandon the victim once the first information report is quashed or bail is secured.” This raises a concern: should courts accept marriage as a compromise in cases of sexual assault?

Sexual assault is a crime committed against the State. Therefore, a compromise between the litigants in such cases should not be suggested or encouraged by the courts. The same principle has been iterated by the Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat vs State of Madhya Pradesh: in gender-related crimes, the courts, the highest court of the land opined, should not encourage steps towards a compromise between the accused and the victim. This, the Supreme Court noted, is beyond their power and jurisdiction.

Generally, courts refrain from accepting compromise in sexual offence cases. A
compromise ends up encouraging acts that are deleterious to the honour and the dignity of women. Only in cases featuring peculiar facts has compromise in the form of marriage been accepted by the courts. The reasoning behind such legal decisions seeks to prioritise the welfare of the victim by attempting to secure a happy married life.

The objective behind such decisions may be the benefit of the victim. But such compromises are rooted in patriarchal sensibilities. Compromise in the form of marriage requires consent from both the accused and the victim. But can the consent of the victim in such instances really be called valid? This is because victims of sexual offence and their families are often under immense societal pressure, especially in cases where the victim has been impregnated as a consequence of the sexual assault. In such situations, marrying the accused seems the only viable option to escape the social stigma that is attached to sexual violation.

In fact, the subjugation of the victim may worsen after marriage. A woman is often abandoned by the husband/accused after the quashing of the FIR or the securing of bail by the accused, a trend acknowledged by the Delhi High Court. After abandonment, the woman is doubly burdened: she is now not only a victim of sexual assault but abandoned as well. These markers of prejudice can be debilitating, to the extent that it becomes a challenge to rehabilitate the victim. The accused, meanwhile, is offered an escape route from criminal liability. As if all this is not enough, the mental trauma endured by women in such instances can have serious repercussions.

Women are not always abandoned by the accused. At times, an unbearable environment is created, forcing the victim to leave him. This is done usually with the aid of domestic violence.

Marriage as a form of legal compromise can lead a victim up the path of severe mental trauma and violence. There is a need for introspection on this issue on the part of the judiciary.