The Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between consensual sex on the pretext of marriage, which is subsequently broken and intercourse on a false promise to marry with mala fide intention from the start. 

The Court stated that it must examine whether the accused was going to stand by his promise or made the promise only to satisfy his lust, as this would invite liability for cheating and deception.

The Court stressed that a breach of promise alone cannot be criminalised as rape, unless it is proven that the promise was false from the very beginning.

[Pradeep Kesarwani v The State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to provide counselling to a POCSO survivor who was repeatedly raped by her biological brother.

The Court stressed the need for a qualified clinical psychologist with expertise in child sexual abuse cases to guide the victim, including advice on educational and vocational continuity. 

It also ordered DSLSA to expedite the disbursal of ₹13.5 lakh compensation and ensure a bank account in the victim’s name is opened within eight weeks.

Expressing anguish over intra-familial abuse, but also noted that the protection of a child's body integrity cannot be compromised.

[Ashish v State of NCT of Delhi]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a suo motu matter, has directed that medical boards formed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act must issue clear, cogent, and comprehensive reports.

The bench emphasized that opinions must explicitly state whether the advice is given in good faith, whether continuation of the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life or physical/mental health, or if there is a substantial risk of severe fetal abnormalities.

The Registrar General has been directed to circulate this order to all Principal District & Sessions Judges and the State Medical Board for strict compliance.

[Prosecutrix X v State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Delhi High Court expressed its concern over the lack of gender equality in the workplace despite stricter norms that have been implemented. 

The Court cited the unchanged mindset of men to be the main cause of such situations, especially when there is involvement of power and authority. It further noted that good education or high positions make no difference to the prevailing conditions.

These opinions were put forward while the Court was dealing with the case of a man against whom a complaint was filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, which was subsequently dismissed due to a lack of compelling evidence.

[Asif Hamid Khan v State and Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an educated, independent woman who continues a relationship with a married man despite knowing his marital status cannot claim exploitation under the law.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retrospectively termed as rape merely because marriage did not follow.

The Court stressed that misuse of criminal provisions in failed relationships burdens the justice system and goes against the intent of laws on sexual offences.

[Ankit Raj v State of NCT of Delhi & ors.]

The Kerala High Court has held that individuals availing sexual services in brothels can be prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA). 

The court emphasised that such individuals are not mere "customers" but are inducing sex workers to continue prostitution by paying for their services and thus fall within the scope of the law.

The case arose from a raid conducted at a house in Thiruvananthapuram, where the petitioner was found with a sex worker.

While the Court quashed charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act, it upheld prosecution under Sections 5(1)(d) and 7, reinforcing that customers are legally accountable for inducing prostitution. 

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds the acquittal of a man accused of rape, noting that love letters written by the complainant to the accused are clear reflections of her feelings.

The Division Bench observes that the letters indicate a consensual relationship between the two. It rules that the prosecution failed to establish charges of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dismissing the appeal against acquittal, the court affirms the trial court’s findings and concludes that no interference is warranted.

[State of H.P. v/s Mam Raj]

The Delhi High Court has enhanced a separated wife’s maintenance from ₹10,000 to ₹14,000, noting that the rise in her estranged husband’s income and the growing cost of living warranted revision.

The couple, married in 1990 and separated since 1992, remained legally wedded after a divorce plea was dismissed in 2011.

Initially, a family court fixed ₹10,000 maintenance in 2012, but her 2018 plea for enhancement was rejected. The High Court found the family court had overlooked the husband’s increased pension of ₹40,068. 

The Court also directed the reinstatement of her name in the CGHS card, recognising it as a valuable marital right.

The Supreme Court has restored the conviction of two men who raped a 12-year-old girl, overturning a Bombay High Court order that had acquitted them due to "insufficient evidence."

The apex court lambasted the systemic failures that allow rapists to evade justice, emphasising that courts must prioritise survivor testimony over hyper-technicalities.

The court mandates sensitive handling of child sexual abuse cases and reinforces the need for judicial accountability in gender-based violence trials. 

The Bench warned against treating minor lapses in charge framing or joinder of trials as fatal to convictions.

The Allahabad High Court expressed serious concerns about male gym trainers coaching female clients without adequate safeguards to protect their safety and dignity. The case involves allegations against a male trainer accused of caste-based slurs, physical abuse, and making obscene videos.

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav directed the police to verify if the accused’s gym is registered, whether the accused has been arrested, and if female trainers are employed.

The court will continue hearing the matter on September 8 to ensure proper safety measures for women gym-goers.

[Nitin Saini v State of UP and Another]

The Allahabad High Court has issued a contempt notice to the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttar Pradesh, for once again rejecting a woman employee's maternity leave request on the grounds of a two-year gap between pregnancies.

Justice Ajit Kumar noted that the Court had already struck down this requirement in Guddi v. State of U.P (2022) and reiterated the same in earlier orders quashing similar rejections.

Calling the Director's conduct "unfortunate" and in clear contempt of binding directions, the Court ordered him to appear in person on September 1 to explain why contempt proceedings should not follow.

The Supreme Court sought responses from the BCI and the Central government on a plea by lawyer Seema Joshi seeking the application of the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment Act (PoSH) to practising lawyers.

The plea challenged the Bombay HC’s refusal to mandate permanent Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) under the PoSH Act in Bar Councils, which the HC limited to employer-employee relationships.

The SC noted doubts about a PIL under Article 32 challenging this order and asked for formal responses.

The plea argues the ruling denies women advocates constitutional protection and seeks gender-just redressal in Bar Councils and associations

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju issued a public apology after the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) strongly condemned his remarks suggesting women lawyers secured favourable orders by “winking” at him.

Katju had posted the comment on Facebook, later deleting it, but it sparked outrage across the legal fraternity.

The SCWLA called his words misogynistic, damaging to women’s credibility, and unbecoming of a former Supreme Court judge, stressing they trivialised women’s professional merit and eroded public trust in judicial impartiality.

Responding to SCWLA’s demand, Katju apologised, saying the comment was intended as a joke but acknowledging it was inappropriate.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a family court order directing an 86-year-old Army veteran to pay ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance to his 77-year-old wife.

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed that a husband with the financial capacity is bound by law and morality to maintain his wife for life, regardless of age.

The veteran argued he was paralysed and that his wife was supported by their sons, but the Court noted he receives a pension of ₹42,750 and owns 2.5 acres of land.

The Court dismissed his plea, holding the maintenance reasonable and necessary.