A civil court in Mumbai has taken a stern stance in a case alleging financial exploitation under the guise of a marriage promise. The court has ordered a local businessman to deposit a sum of Rs 7.5 lakh as a conditional requirement for him to defend himself in a civil suit filed by a woman. The woman claims she gave him the money as a 'friendly loan' after he proposed to her.
The Allegations: A Promise of Marriage and a Financial Crisis
According to the plaintiff's suit, the two individuals met in 2012 and developed a friendship. The man, who was married at the time, allegedly proposed marriage to her, stating he was in the process of divorcing his wife. Years later, in 2017, he cited a severe financial crisis in his business and urgently sought her help.
The woman agreed to provide financial assistance. To formalize the arrangement, the man executed a written promise on a Rs 100 stamp paper, committing to return the Rs 7.5 lakh by the end of December 2017. Trusting his promise of marriage, she advanced the amount.
However, the situation soured when the man allegedly began deferring repayment and eventually started avoiding her calls by 2019. With neither the money returned nor the marriage materializing, the woman was compelled to take legal action. She first filed a police complaint at the Samta Nagar police station and subsequently moved the civil court to recover her money with 18% interest.
The Court's Scrutiny and the 'Moonshine Defence'
The defendant businessman contested the civil suit with a counter-narrative. He claimed he had already repaid Rs 7 lakh in cash through various instalments in the presence of a witness. He further argued that he had deposited an additional Rs 2 lakh before the Bombay High Court on humanitarian grounds due to the woman's reported illness. Therefore, he contended that the woman actually owed him Rs 1.5 lakh.
The civil court judge, however, found significant weaknesses in this defence. The claim of a substantial cash repayment lacked any documentary evidence. The judge made a crucial observation regarding the man's actions: "If the defendant has not really taken the friendly loan of Rs 7.5 lakh, then why did he approach for anticipatory bail?"
This action, following the police complaint, led the court to draw an adverse inference against him. Dismissing his cash repayment story, the judge remarked, "So, this is a moonshine defence taken by the defendant, just to avoid payment of amount." The court acknowledged that while the interest rate was a point for trial, the core defence against the loan itself was not strong enough to grant him unconditional leave to contest.
The Conditional Order and Its Implications
Balancing the right to defend with the need to secure the claimed amount, the court passed a conditional order. The man must deposit the principal amount of Rs 7.5 lakh into the court within two months. Upon deposit, the Registrar is directed to invest the sum in a nationalised bank for an initial period of one year.
The order carries a clear consequence for non-compliance. If the businessman fails to deposit the amount, the woman will be at liberty to seek a direct decree against him, effectively moving towards a judgment in her favour without a full trial on that aspect.
This case highlights the legal recourse available in complex disputes where personal relationships intertwine with financial transactions, and courts may demand security to prevent frivolous defences.
