An Indian-born truck driver has been sentenced to almost a decade in prison after a South Australian court found he raped a woman he had met through an Indian matrimonial website before exploiting her cultural and religious beliefs to pressure her into marrying him.

Manvir Singh, 36, was sentenced in the South Australian District Court after a jury found him guilty of two counts of rape, four counts of aggravated assault and three counts of attempting to dissuade a witness from giving evidence.

District Court Judge Geraldine Davison imposed a sentence of nine years, seven months and three days’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years, seven months and three days. The sentence was backdated to 10 September 2024 to reflect time already spent in custody and on home detention.

The court heard Singh first met the complainant in February 2023 through an Indian matrimonial website, where the woman’s sister had been searching for a suitable husband on her behalf.

After travelling from Perth to Adelaide to meet the woman and her family, Singh invited her to help pack his luggage in his room at the Finsbury Hotel.

Once inside, the jury found that he raped her despite her repeated objections.

According to evidence accepted by the court, after the assault Singh laughed and said to the woman in Punjabi: “Congratulations, you are the mother of my kids now.”

Judge Davison said those words carried significant cultural meaning in the circumstances of the case.

In sentencing remarks, the judge found the statement was effectively an attempt to force the complainant into marriage by exploiting the shame she would experience after having sexual intercourse before marriage within her cultural and religious community.

The court found the complainant repeatedly told Singh to stop during the assault and reminded him that his actions were sinful according to their Sikh faith.

The following day, the pair attended a Sikh temple in Prospect, where Singh swore before God that he loved the complainant, would never hurt her, would remain faithful and would not drink alcohol or use drugs.

They married on 11 March 2023.

Judge Davison found the complainant proceeded with the wedding despite serious reservations.

She accepted evidence that the woman feared the consequences of cancelling the marriage after the rape, particularly because wedding invitations had already been distributed and she did not know whether she had become pregnant.

The judge concluded that Singh had deliberately taken advantage of those circumstances.

“She had been shamed by you as you had sexual intercourse with her prior to the wedding,” Judge Davison said during sentencing.

“The invitations had gone out for the wedding, and she felt it was too late to back out.”

The abuse did not end after the marriage.

The court heard Singh regularly verbally abused his wife, accusing her of infidelity, calling her degrading names and demanding money to buy alcohol.

He also physically assaulted her on several occasions.

In November 2023, while staying at her family home, Singh raped her a second time despite repeated protests.

On another occasion that same month, he slapped her, grabbed her wrists and dragged her to the ground before members of her family intervened.

Judge Davison found Singh’s conduct demonstrated a continuing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour throughout the relationship.

A central feature of the sentencing decision was the judge’s finding that Singh had deliberately exploited the complainant’s cultural background.

The court accepted that he understood she held strong cultural beliefs discouraging discussion of intimate matters outside the marriage and used those beliefs to strengthen his control over her.

“You took advantage of what you well understood to be strongly held cultural beliefs by the complainant,” Judge Davison said.

“You knew that this gave you the upper hand to behave as you pleased.”

After criminal charges were laid, Singh attempted to persuade the complainant not to proceed with the prosecution.

The court heard he threatened to damage her family’s reputation within the Indian community and attempted to involve senior figures from her village in India in an effort to pressure her into withdrawing the allegations.

Those actions formed the basis of three convictions for attempting to dissuade a witness from giving evidence.

In her victim impact statement, the complainant described the devastating effect the offending had on her life.

She told the court she had always dreamed of a peaceful and happy marriage but instead found herself trapped in an abusive relationship that fundamentally changed her future.

“Before marriage, I always dreamt of a peaceful and happy married life like every ordinary woman dreams of,” she said.

“I never realised this marriage would break me so completely and my life would never be the same again.”

During sentencing, Singh’s legal team argued that the likelihood he would be deported from Australia after completing his prison sentence should reduce the punishment imposed.

Judge Davison rejected that submission.

She ruled that deportation was a foreseeable consequence of committing serious criminal offences as a non-citizen and did not justify reducing the sentence.

“I do not consider the likelihood of deportation in these circumstances to be a feature that should mitigate the sentence that I impose,” the judge said.

“I accept that being deported is likely to occur. This is a consequence of committing such serious offences in this country.”

The court further found Singh had shown no genuine remorse for his actions.

Judge Davison concluded his prospects for rehabilitation were poor, noting he continued to deny responsibility despite the jury’s verdict and had failed to demonstrate insight into the harm caused to the complainant.

Those findings contributed to the lengthy custodial sentence ultimately imposed.

The case also highlights broader issues surrounding coercive control and family violence within culturally diverse communities.

Australian courts have increasingly recognised that offenders may exploit cultural expectations, family honour or religious beliefs to exercise control over victims, particularly in intimate partner relationships.

Judges have repeatedly emphasised that cultural background can provide important context when assessing offending, but it can never excuse or justify criminal conduct.

Support services similarly encourage victim-survivors from migrant communities to seek assistance regardless of cultural or family pressures, noting that Australian criminal law applies equally to all residents irrespective of cultural traditions or religious practices.

For the South Australian District Court, however, the central issue remained the offender’s deliberate exploitation of the complainant’s trust, vulnerability and deeply held beliefs.

Judge Davison concluded that Singh had used those beliefs to facilitate sexual violence, maintain control over the complainant and later attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.

With the sentence now imposed, Singh will remain in custody until he becomes eligible to apply for parole after serving the minimum non-parole period, after which immigration authorities may determine whether he should be removed from Australia under federal migration law.