MUMBAI, July 30 -- The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition to quash a rape case, observing that the woman's consent was obtained through an illegal, surrogacy-like agreement that cannot be considered as valid under law, as it violated public policy. The rape case was registered on June 26, 2022, based on a complaint from the victim, who had been a domestic worker at the house of the accused since February 2021. A month after she joined, the accused allegedly subjected her to physical assault and rape. He even barred her from stepping outside the house. On June 24, 2022, she decided to leave and demanded her salary from the family, but he allegedly assaulted her again and tried to strangulate her. According to the prosecution, the victim revealed her ordeal to her mother, who had come to visit her on the following day. Her mother took her to a nearby hospital for examination, and medical records showed nine injuries. Subsequently, an FIR was registered by Anandnagar police station in Dharashiv against the accused. After the charge sheet was filed before the chief judicial magistrate, the accused moved a bail application in 2022. In his affidavit, he enclosed a statement from the victim stating that the FIR was based on a misunderstanding. However, as the proceedings continued, he moved the Bombay High Court in 2023 to quash the FIR and the chargesheet. During the hearing, the court admitted an affidavit by the accused claiming that she had entered into a consensual live-in relationship with him for one year. A written agreement stated the victim consented to stay with the accused and his family between January 17, 2022, and January 17, 2023, as a surrogate for his baby. This was signed by the victim, her mother, the accused, and his wife. The agreement stated that the child would remain with the accused, and the domestic worker shall not claim any right over it after delivery. The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh, however, refused to consider the argument. The court said the agreement was 'against public policy' and amounted to illegal surrogacy. "It is hard to believe that such an agreement can be entered into by the wife of the applicant, whereby she was, in a way, parting with her husband. No sane married lady would do it in such a way," the court remarked. The victim, an illiterate and rustic lady, was married 11 years ago and had two children. Three years ago, due to quarrels with her husband, they separated. "This shows that she was in need of money, and under the pretext of giving money, it appears that such an illegal document has been executed by her," the court said. It also noted that the victim signed the agreement without understanding the legal consequences. When surrogacy is prohibited, paying an amount for it is against the public policy, and it does not amount to free consent, the high court said while rejecting the plea for quashing the FIR....