I am not agree with the court. But at the same time it should also be ensured that if any reason marriage does not take place no one can accused his/her partner.
Two consenting adults engaging in the most natural act as male and female of a species (human in this case), how does that make it immoral?
Just because society decided to set some rule, which had the basis on providing more secure environment for the off springs of such relationship, does not make it immoral.
What is immoral is the use of marriage to lure someone in establishing such consent and then backing off from such promise.
What is immoral is claiming it as rape or forceful relationship after giving consent, even on a later broke promise of marriage. It is then a case of once fool and twice shy, where it just simple foolishness, to establish such relationship on future commitments, when the execution of such commitment is not binding in any other way but by the morality of the other party involved.
Law, judge and society have no say in this whole episode if both parties are adults and the act happened on consent of both, even if one party backed off from promise later on.
Re: Not immoral, but rather natural
by subramanyasastry hoskote on Jan 09, 2014 07:28 AM
It is natural that animals are not clothed. It is also natural that they don't have things like property and heredity. It is also natural that the stronger animal will have priority over the weaker. So shall we do away with Cr.P.C?
