The Supreme Court on Monday observed that when consenting adults choose to live together without marriage, the subsequent breakdown of such a relationship may not, by itself, attract criminal liability.
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case alleging rape on the false pretext of marriage, where the parties had lived together for about 15 years and had a child.
During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the petitioner’s counsel on the existence of the essential ingredients of the offence.
“Why did she go and live with him before marriage? See now if we ask these questions, they say we are victim shaming. What is this…?” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
Raising doubts about the legal consequences of the breakdown of such a relationship, the Court asked,
“Once he (accused) walks out, does it become a criminal offence?”
The Court also expressed concern over the sequence of events leading up to the complaint.
“Why did she go live with him and have a child? Now she is saying sexual assault,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The petitioner claimed that she was an 18-year-old widow when she met the accused, a Tehsildar, to whom she had been introduced by her brother-in-law. It was alleged that he promised to marry her and, on that basis, entered into a relationship with her. The two lived together for around 15 years and had a child.
The woman further claimed that she was unaware that the accused was already married and later discovered that he had relationships with other women. It was also alleged that he exploited her by misusing his position of authority.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted,
“Allegation is that he sexually assaulted her and that he made a false promise of marriage. He met her when she was merely 18 years old.”
However, the Court indicated that the nature and duration of the relationship raised questions about the applicability of criminal charges.
“We are only concerned with this petitioner. So there was a consensual relationship. They were living together. She had a child and then she files complaint of sexual assault and all that…Where is the offence?” observed Justice Nagarathna.
When the petitioner’s counsel argued that the accused had similarly exploited other women, the Court declined to expand the scope of the case.
“We are not concerned about what he is doing to other women. We are concerned about this petitioner,” said the Court.
The Court also questioned the delay in filing the complaint.
“15 years? At this point of time she has filed a complaint. After how many years? For all living relationships if they split, the lady has to file a complaint,” Justice Nagarathna said.
While acknowledging the petitioner’s predicament, the Court remarked,
“We can only sympathise with your client; she got befooled or whatever. She went with him, had a child, lived with him for 15 years.”
It also pointed to the absence of a legal marital bond, indicating that such relationships may not carry the same legal protections. The Court noted that the petitioner may pursue other remedies, including maintenance for the child, but emphasised that invoking criminal law would require clear establishment of an offence.
Ultimately, the Court referred the dispute to mediation.
[Read Live Coverage]