The Supreme Court of India has clarified that when two adults continue a live-in relationship for an extended period, it implies mutual consent to maintain the relationship without necessarily leading to marriage. This observation came while quashing a criminal case against a man accused of rape based on a false promise of marriage.
Read also: Only 14 of 221 High Court Judges Appointed Since November 2022 Related to Judges: Supreme Court Data
Case Background
In this case, a couple lived together for over two years and even signed a settlement deed on November 19, 2023, affirming their love and intention to marry. However, four days later, on November 23, 2023, the woman filed an FIR, alleging that the man had forced sexual relations with her on November 18, 2023.
When the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the FIR, the accused approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, examined the case and noted that the FIR did not allege that the physical relationship was initiated solely due to a promise of marriage.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a prolonged live-in relationship creates a presumption of valid consent between the parties. The Court highlighted that for over two years, the couple maintained a physical relationship without any complaint.
"Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between. In such circumstances, a presumption would arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining the physical relationship that spanned over two years," the Court stated.
The Court further rejected the claim that the relationship was solely based on a promise of marriage:
"If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of relationship fully aware of its consequences," the Court observed.
The Supreme Court also recognized the changing social dynamics where more women are financially independent, leading to a rise in live-in relationships. The Court urged a practical approach to such cases, avoiding a rigid or pedantic perspective.
“A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent... This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships,” the Court noted.
Case Title: RAVISH SINGH RANA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nishant Gill, Adv. Mr. Saksham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra,AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.
