The Supreme Court of India has recently addressed a complex case involving a woman accusing a man of rape under the false promise of marriage, sparking a debate about extramarital affairs and consent. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh were hearing the woman's petition seeking the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court questioned the woman about her extramarital affair, suggesting she may face prosecution for engaging in sexual relations outside of her marriage. The court's remarks came in response to the woman's counsel arguing that the man continued a sexual relationship with her client under the false pretense of marriage. The bench noted that the woman was a married woman with two children and was mature enough to understand the implications of her actions. The court questioned why she repeatedly went to hotels with the man.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the anticipatory bail granted to the man by the Patna High Court. The Supreme Court's observation that the woman was also committing an offense by engaging in extramarital sex has ignited discussions about the legal and social implications of infidelity in the context of rape allegations.

This case highlights the complexities and sensitivities surrounding accusations of rape, particularly when relationships outside of marriage are involved. It also touches upon the legal standing of extramarital affairs in India, where adultery can be grounds for prosecution. The Supreme Court's stance underscores the importance of considering all aspects of a relationship when evaluating claims of sexual misconduct, including the existing marital status and the understanding of involved parties.

The case has prompted varied reactions, with some legal experts questioning the relevance of the woman's extramarital affair to the rape accusation. Others believe the court's observations were pertinent to assessing the credibility and context of the allegations. Regardless of the differing viewpoints, the Supreme Court's handling of this case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between individual autonomy, marital fidelity, and the pursuit of justice in matters of sexual offense.