If a fully grown up lady had consensual sex with a person for long time, it is promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact!

No cogent evidence has emerged on record to show that the physical relations were established with the prosecutirx on the false promise or assurance of marriage. Where was the compulsion for the prosecutrix to have physical relationship repeatedly without ensuring that the appellant and his family members were willing to perform marriage with her? She was mature enough to fully understand as to what was happening between the two. There is nothing in her evidence to demonstrate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the acts which she consented to. Her consent for physical relationship (if any) was an act of conscious reason. If a fully grown up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise to marry and continues to indulge in such activity for long, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact. ‘X’ is not believed to allow the appellant to have physical relations repeatedly without first ensuring authenticity of the alleged promise to marriage particularly when they both were married.