According to the complainant, the relationship began in 2018 and allegedly continued until she learnt about the advocate's (petitioner's) marriage to another woman in March 2026.
She alleged that the accused had concealed his Muslim identity when they first met in 2018 and had introduced himself as “Rohan."
She further alleged that he continued to assure her of marriage over the following years and established physical relations with her on that assurance.
He allegedly told the complainant that he would convert to Hinduism, change his name and marry her.
She claimed to have later learnt that he had married another woman on March 1, 2026, despite having earlier introduced that woman to her as his sister.
The case arose from an eight-year-long relationship between the two advocates.
According to the complainant, the relationship began in 2018 and allegedly continued until she learnt about the advocate's (petitioner's) marriage to another woman in March 2026.
The complainant denied that their relationship was simply consensual as portrayed by the accused. She alleged that the accused had concealed his Muslim identity when they first met in 2018 and had introduced himself as “Rohan."
She further submitted that he had performed what she described as a “symbolic marriage” with her at her office in August 2018 by applying sindoor to her forehead and making her wear a mangalsutra.
She further alleged that he continued to assure her of marriage over the following years and established physical relations with her on that assurance.
According to her, these assurances continued even after she learnt of his religious identity. He allegedly told the complainant that he would convert to Hinduism, change his name and marry her.
She claimed to have later learnt that he had married another woman on March 1, 2026, despite having earlier introduced that woman to her as his sister.
Therefore, she argued that the first information report (FIR) filed on her complaint could not be quashed at the investigation stage, particularly when the parties were giving competing accounts of their relationship.
