SC Questions Rape Claim in Consensual Live-in Case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned a woman who had challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court order quashing an FIR against her former live-in partner in a case alleging sexual assault on a false promise of marriage.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the woman had been in a long-term live-in relationship with the man and had a child with him.

“Where is the question of an offence when the relationship is consensual? They were living together, had a child, and lived together for 15 years. Now, after there is no marriage, she alleges sexual assault?” Justice Nagarathna remarked.

The woman’s counsel submitted that she had lost her husband earlier and was introduced to the accused by her brother-in-law. He alleged that the accused had promised to marry her and sexually exploited her.

Justice Nagarathna questioned why the woman chose to live with the man before marriage, noting that the absence of a legal bond in a live-in relationship carries inherent risks. “If there is no legal bond, either party can walk out. That does not automatically amount to a criminal offence,” she said.

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the accused was already married and had concealed this fact.

Responding to this, the court said that if there had been a valid marriage, the woman could have sought legal remedies such as action for bigamy or maintenance. “In the absence of marriage, this is the risk in such relationships. They can walk out any day. What can we do?” Justice Nagarathna observed.

The Bench suggested that the woman could pursue remedies such as maintenance for the child and encouraged both parties to consider mediation.

“Even if he goes to jail, what will she gain? We can consider maintenance for the child, who is now seven years old. At least some monetary support should be ensured,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The apex court issued notice in the matter and asked the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement.