While
quashing a rape case based on an alleged false promise of marriage, the Supreme
Court held that when a couple lives together in a live-in relationship for an
extended period, it indicates a mutual decision to continue the relationship
without intending to marry. The Court emphasized that when two consenting
adults cohabit for several years, it becomes difficult to support claims that
the relationship was solely based on a false promise of marriage.
In the
case at hand, the couple had been living together for over two years. On
November 19, 2023, they signed a settlement deed affirming their love and
expressing their intention to marry. However, on November 23, 2023, the woman
lodged an FIR alleging that the man had engaged in non-consensual sex with her
on November 18, 2023.
After
the Uttarakhand High Court declined to quash the FIR, the man moved the Supreme
Court. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, observed
that the FIR did not contain any claim that the physical relationship was
initiated solely based on a promise of marriage.
"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 said.
The
Court also found the argument that the relationship was based on promise to
marry untenable. “In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a
live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a
presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship
fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such
relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the
circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation
that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been
no promise to marry.”, the Court observed.
"Moreover,
in a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that
relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of
marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be
indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or
wish."
The
Court further observed: “A decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might
not have been common. But now more and more women are financially independent
and have the capacity to take conscious decision of charting their life on
their own terms. This financial freedom, inter alia, has led to proliferation
of such live-in relationships. Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to
a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on
the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied
consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire
or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.”, the Court noted.
“In that
view of the matter, in our considered view, the long-drawn relationship of the
appellant and the second respondent including the circumstance of their living
together and cohabiting with each other, that too, in a separate rented
accommodation, would give rise to a presumption that their relationship was
based on a valid consent.”, the court concluded. Accordingly, the appeal was
allowed, as the court deemed that the continuance of the criminal proceedings
would be an abuse of process of law.
info@adhwaitha.com