The Supreme Court of India has ruled that in cases involving a prolonged live-in relationship, allegations of rape based solely on a promise of marriage cannot be accepted. The Court emphasized that when two consenting adults cohabit for years, it must be presumed they entered the relationship voluntarily and with full awareness of its implications.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra observed, “If two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years, a presumption arises that they voluntarily chose that kind of relationship. In such cases, claims of rape on the grounds of a broken marriage promise are unworthy of acceptance, particularly when physical intimacy wasn’t contingent on such a promise.”
The Court noted the increasing prevalence of live-in relationships, attributing it partly to greater financial independence among women, which allows them to make informed life choices. It cautioned against taking a pedantic approach in such cases and encouraged courts to consider the length and nature of the relationship when assessing consent.
The ruling came while quashing a rape and assault FIR against Ravish Singh Rana, filed by a woman who had been in a live-in relationship with him. The woman alleged that physical relations were established under the false pretext of marriage and that Rana later refused to marry her and became abusive.
After reviewing the facts, the apex court dismissed the High Court’s earlier refusal to quash the FIR, holding that the charge of rape could not be sustained merely on the basis of marriage refusal, and that the other allegations lacked evidentiary support.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Gautam Barnwal, Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Nishant Gill, Saksham Kumar, Aakash, and Mukesh Kumar. The respondents were represented by Advocates Vanshaja Shukla, Ajay Bahuguna, Siddhant Yadav, Garvesh Kabra, and Pallavi Kumari.
