SC rejects pleas by rape survivor, convict to marry each other

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to facilitate marriage between a woman and her rapist, a former Catholic priest from Kerala who is undergoing a 20-years jail term for the crime committed when she was a minor.

A bench of justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari dismissed the petitions moved separately by the woman and Robin Vadakkumcherry Mathew.

Mathew was the vicar of St

Sebastian’s Church at Kottiyoor in Wayanad district when the crime occurred. He was the manager of a church-backed school where the survivor, then a Class XI student, was studying. She got pregnant due to the crime and gave birth to a girl child in February 2017.

A childline agency that worked among schoolchildren met the survivor and she told them about her ordeal. Accordingly, they filed a complaint based on which a rape case was registered against Mathew. He was convicted in February 2019 and sentenced to 20 years in jail. The Vatican, too, defrocked him.

Citing several Supreme Court judgments that lay down that a rape case cannot be settled, the Kerala high court had refused to suspend Mathew’s sentence for marriage.

Against this order, Mathew and the survivor approached the top court, asking for bail to Mathew to enable him to come out and marry.

While the woman emphasised that the marriage will give legitimacy to the child born to her,

Mathew argued that the courts must not stop him from exercising his “fundamental right to marry”.

Senior advocate Kiran Suri appeared for the woman and advocate Amit George represented the former priest in the apex court. Suri said that the child was of school-going age, and hence the father’s name needed to be mentioned in the school admission application form.

“How can my fundamental right to marriage be restricted while deciding a bail application?” George asked. But the bench was unmoved.

“You invited it yourself. The high court order is a well-reasoned order. It has made the observations after considering all aspects of the matter. We do not want to disturb the findings of the high court,” said the bench.

It also asked George about the age of his client and the survivor, and he said Mathew is 49 and the woman 25. At this, the bench said that it would not interfere in a matter like this and that Mathew should resort to other remedies available to him under the law.