Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs State of A P

IPC 376- rape- consent of women- on the promise of marriage no consent- the intention of the accused right from the beginning was not bona fide and the poor girl submitted to the lust of the accused completely being misled by the accused who held out the promise for marriage. This kind of consent taken by the accused with clear intention not to fulfil the promise and persuaded the girl to believe that he is going to marry her and obtained her consent for the sexual intercourse under total misconception, cannot be treated to be a consent- If it is fully grown up girl who gave the consent then it is different case but a girl whose age is very tender and she is giving a consent after persuasion of three months on the promise that the accused will marry her which he never intended to fulfil right from the beginning which is apparent from the conduct of the accused- If the attending circumstances lead to the conclusion that it was not only the accused but prosecutor was also equally keen, then in that case the offence is condoned. But in case a poor girl placed in a peculiar circumstance where her father has died and she does not understand what the consequences may result for indulging into such acts and when the accused promised to marry but he never intended to marry right from the beginning then the consent of the girl is of no consequence and falls in the second category as enumerated in Section 375 -"without her consent". A consent obtained by misconception while playing a fraud is not a consent.

Uday Vs State of Karnataka 2003 CriLJ 1539

IPC -376- rape- consent - for determining whether consent given by the prosecutor was voluntary or under a misconception of fact, no straitjacket formula can be laid down but following factors stand out;
(i) where a girl was of 19 years of age and had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to;
(ii) she was conscious of the fact that her marriage was difficult on account of caste considerations;
(iii) it was difficult to impute to the appellant knowledge the prosecutor had consented in consequence of a misconception of fact arising from his promise, and
(iv) there was no evidence to prove conclusively that the appellant never intended to marry the prosecutor.

Brajendra Singh Vs State of MP (2008) 13 SCC 161

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under -"A married woman cannot adopt at all during the subsistence of the marriage except when the husband has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. If the husband is not under such disqualification, the wife cannot adopt even with the consent of the husband whereas the husband can adopt with the consent of the wife. This is clear from Section 7 of the Act. Proviso thereof makes it clear that a male Hindu cannot adopt except with the consent of the wife, unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. It is relevant to note that in the case of a male Hindu the consent of the wife is necessary unless the other contingency exists. Though Section 8 is almost identical, the consent of the husband is not provided for. The proviso to Section 7 imposes a restriction in the right of male Hindu to take in adoption. In this respect the Act radically departs from the old law where no such bar was laid down to the exercise of the right of a male Hindu to adopt oneself, unless he dispossesses the requisite capacity. As per the proviso to Section 7 the wife's consent must be obtained prior to adoption and cannot be subsequent to the act of adoption. The proviso lays down consent as a condition precedent to an adoption which is mandatory and adoption without wife's consent would be void. Both proviso to Sections 7 and 8(c) refer to certain circumstances which have effect on the capacity to make an adoption"

Kashibai v. Parwatibai (1995) 6 SCC 213

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that in the absence of the consent of one of the two wives, the adoption by the husband could not be treated as valid one.