The Supreme Court on Monday warned against the “vicissitudes of extramarital affairs” while expressing concern at the growing trend of criminal law being invoked after the breakdown of live-in relationships.
A bench of Justices B V Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuiyan asked whether a long-term living arrangement culminating in the birth of a child could, in itself, give rise to a criminal charge of sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage.
“This is what happens in live-in relationships. They live together for years…and if they break up, the woman files a complaint for sexual assault,” the council noted, describing it as “the whims of extramarital affairs.”
The court’s observations came as it issued notice on a woman’s petition challenging the quashing of her FIR against her ex-partner and pushed the parties towards exploring a mediated settlement.
Read also | Supreme Court holds Union government in contempt over delay in order to abort a minor
It was hearing an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashing an order in a rape case on account of false promise, which had led to the cancellation of criminal proceedings under the BNS provisions. The complainant alleged that she was entered into a relationship with the promise of marriage, without knowing that the accused was already married, and was then abandoned after years of cohabitation.
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly considered the nature and duration of the relationship, noting that the parties had lived together for years and had a child. He wondered how this relationship could later be recast as a criminal offence. She added: “Where is the issue of abuse when there is a consensual relationship? They live together and she has a child with him and then there is no marriage… and then you say sexual assault? How long did they live together? For 15 years they lived together.”
Read also | The appellant lawyer was denied treatment in 3 hospitals in Delhi, and the Supreme Court orders an investigation
“Risk in live-in relationships”
Even when the court acknowledged that the complainant had entered into the relationship when she was only 18 years old and had allegedly been misled, it stressed the need to carefully distinguish between the legal threshold for a criminal offense and the consequences of a failed personal relationship.
Justice Nagaratna stressed that in the absence of marriage, parties to a cohabitation relationship bear certain risks. “She lived with him. She had a child with him. He moved out because there was no marriage bond…and that is the danger in a live-in relationship,” the court said, adding that such conduct, in itself, did not automatically entail criminal liability.
The panel also noted that had there been a valid marriage, the complainant would have had access to clearer legal remedies, including bigamy or alimony. “Look, if there had been a marriage, her rights would have been better. She could have filed for polygamy. She could have filed for alimony. She would have gotten those exemptions. Now that there’s no marriage, they’re living together. That’s the risk. They could move out any day. What do we do?”
Read also | Ludhiana: A man has been booked for allegedly assaulting his live-in partner and shaving his head, police say
While the court declined to delve into the allegations relating to the accused’s behavior with other women, it limited itself to the facts of this case and suggested that the complainant may explore civil remedies, particularly in relation to the support and welfare of the child. She also pointed to the delay in commencing criminal proceedings, and questioned the timing of the complaint after 15 years of cohabitation. The Board noted that the accused’s imprisonment may not necessarily address the complainant’s immediate concerns, particularly those relating to the child.
