Refusal to marry long-term live-in partner won’t amount to rape: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court on June 29 held that when two adults are in a long-term live-in relationship, the law presumes their physical relationship was consensual, and a subsequent refusal by the man to marry the woman would not amount to rape.

A bench of Justices Sanjay S Agrawal and Narendra Kumar Vyas said that while couples in live-in relationships may express a desire to eventually marry, such an expression does not by itself establish that the physical relationship between them existed solely because of a promise of marriage.

“In a long-drawn live-in relationship… a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences,” it noted.

It added that as more women become financially independent, courts should not adopt a “pedantic approach” while examining such cases but should instead consider the duration of the relationship and the conduct of the parties to determine whether consent can be presumed.

The case arose from an appeal filed by a woman challenging the acquittal of a man accused of rape and unnatural sex.

The woman, a 40-year-old Project Manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation, alleged that she met the accused while pursuing MBA course at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Raipur in 2019. According to her, the accused assured her that he would marry her, following which they entered into a physical relationship and lived together for about two years.

She alleged that after the completion of their MBA, the accused began avoiding discussions on marriage before eventually telling her that his parents opposed to marriage because she was older, a divorcee and a Christian.

She further alleged that on November 28, 2021, when she visited his residence and again requested him to marry her, he subjected her to unnatural sexual intercourse against her wishes.

A first information report (FIR) was registered in December 2022 under Sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the trial court acquitted the accused after holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

She then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The High Court noted that during her cross-examination, the woman admitted that she was willing to settle the dispute before the Women’s Commission for ₹30 lakh. It noted that the accused had handed over a cheque of ₹15 lakh as part of the proposed settlement but payment under the cheque was subsequently stopped after the settlement did not materialise.

The Bench also took note of the woman’s admission that she and the accused had agreed to marry only with the consent of their respective families. It further noted the testimony of her brother, who stated that she had told him the physical relationship developed because they were in a love affair despite belonging to different communities.

The Court also relied on the testimony of the doctor who examined the woman. The doctor stated that the woman had neither complained of forced sexual intercourse or unnatural sex during the medical examination nor were any injuries found which suggested unnatural sexual intercourse.

In light of this evidence, the High Court held that the trial court had rightly concluded that the relationship between the parties was consensual.

“The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the victim and the accused were living in long drawn relationship as such, the physical relationship is consensual relationship. As such, the accused cannot be punished for commission of offence of rape is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the Bench observed.

Accordingly, it upheld the accused's acquittal and dismissed the woman’s appeal.

[Read Order]