The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that throwing a “chit”, or what could be considered a letter professing love or affection, at a married woman would amount to “outraging her modesty”, reported The Times of India on Tuesday.

The High Court bench added that a woman’s modesty is her “most precious jewel” and that there could not be a “straightjacket formula” to establish whether it had been outraged.

“The complainant is a married woman, aged 45 years and the very act of throwing a chit on her person which professes love for her and which contains poetic verses, albeit extremely, purely written is sufficient to outrage the modesty of a woman,” the court of Justice Rohit Deo said, according to ANI.

The court was hearing a case dated back to October 3, 2011, when the petitioner, identified as Akola resident Shrikrushna Tiwari, had thrown a chit of paper at the woman after she refused to take it. He had also muttered “I love you” after throwing the piece of paper, the woman said.

The following day, the man made objectionable gestures, according to the woman, and warned her not to reveal the contents of the paper he had thrown at her.

The High Court judge said that there was no reason to not believe the woman’s version of what happened. The court also cited the complainant’s testimony, saying that the man used to flirt with her, make gestures like pouting and sometimes hit her with pebbles.

After the incident, the woman registered a complaint against the man in a sessions court. The accused man was charged under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. In 2011, the man was also fined Rs 40,000, out of which Rs 35,000 was compensation for the woman.

However, Tiwari later challenged the lower court’s judgement with a criminal revision plea, arguing that the woman had falsified her complaint as she bought groceries on credit from the man’s store and was not willing to pay the amount.

“The petitioner has already undergone 45 days of incarceration,” the Bombay High Court judge said, according to The Times of India. “Considering the date of the incident, as the provisions of law stood then, there was no minimum sentence provided for offence punishable under Section 354. It is only by the 2013 amendment that a minimum sentence is provided.”

The court increased the amount of fine to Rs 90,000, of which the court asked the accused to pay Rs 85,000 to the woman as compensation. The man was given 15 days to deposit the money in the trial court.