THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, April 27: Emphasising the “vagaries of relationships outside marriage,” the Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether a criminal charge of sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage can arise from a 15-year live-in relationship that resulted in the birth of a child.
A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to quash an FIR registered under Sections 69, 115(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024, against a man accused by his former partner.
What is the Case?
The complainant alleged that the accused, known to her family, had lured her into a relationship at a young age by promising marriage while concealing that he was already married. She claimed she entered the relationship as a young widow and was later abandoned after years of cohabitation.
The High Court had quashed the FIR, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court.
Court Questions Criminality in Consensual Relationship
During the hearing, the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned whether the facts disclosed a criminal offence.
“Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They lived together for 15 years and had a child,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
The bench indicated that a long-duration relationship with cohabitation and a child suggests continuity of consent, making it difficult to frame it as sexual assault at a later stage.
‘Vagaries of Relationship Outside Marriage’
The Court stressed that live-in relationships inherently carry risks due to the absence of a legal bond.
“These are the vagaries of a relationship outside marriage. If there were a marriage, she would have had stronger legal remedies, like maintenance or an action for bigamy. In a live-in relationship, either partner can walk out,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The bench noted that separation, by itself, does not convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence.
Questions on Delay and Conduct
The Court also raised concerns over the delay in filing the complaint after years of cohabitation.
“Why file a complaint after so many years? If relationships break down, does it automatically become a case of sexual assault?” the bench asked.
It also questioned the complainant’s decision to enter and continue in the relationship, while acknowledging that such questions are often criticised as victim-shaming.
Allegations of Deception Examined
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused had concealed his existing marriage and exploited the complainant’s vulnerable situation, having been widowed at a young age.
However, the Court indicated that even if there was initial deception, the long duration of the relationship and shared life circumstances complicate the application of criminal charges.
The bench declined to examine allegations about the accused’s relationships with other women, limiting the scope to the present case.
Focus on Child’s Rights and Practical Relief
The Court shifted focus to the welfare of the child born from the relationship, now around seven years old.
“Even if he is put behind bars, what will she gain? The child must be supported,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
It underlined that the child cannot be treated as illegitimate and is entitled to financial support.
The bench suggested mediation to explore the possibility of maintenance or compensation for the child.
The Court issued notice and posted the matter for May 25, primarily to explore a possible settlement between the parties, particularly regarding financial support for the child.
