Supreme Court Rules: Long-Term Live-In Relationship Cannot Be Basis for Rape Allegation on False Promise of Marriage

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a woman who has been in a long-term live-in relationship cannot later accuse her partner of rape on the grounds of a false promise of marriage. This decision underscores the Court's recognition of consensual relationships and aims to prevent the misuse of legal provisions intended to protect genuine victims of sexual assault. This verdict was in light of the 16-year-old case, Rajnish Singh and Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. In this case, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape by his long-term live-in partner.

Case Background

The case involved a bank manager and a lecturer who were in a live-in relationship for 16 years. The woman alleged that the man had engaged in sexual relations with her under the false pretext of marriage. After the man married another woman, the complainant filed charges of rape against him, asserting that her consent to the relationship was based solely on his promise to marry her.

Supreme Court's Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, quashed the criminal proceedings against the man. The Court highlighted several key points in its judgment:

●        Duration and Nature of the Relationship

The Court found it implausible that the complainant, a well-educated and professionally established woman, would continue a sexual relationship for 16 years without protest if it were based solely on a false promise of marriage. The prolonged duration indicated a consensual relationship devoid of force or deceit.

●        Consent and Misconception

The Court emphasized that consent obtained under a misconception of fact, such as a false promise of marriage, can invalidate consent. However, in this case, the extended duration of the relationship undermined the claim that the consent was based solely on such a misconception.

●        Implications of Long-Term Relationships

The Court noted that in long-term live-in relationships, it becomes challenging to determine that sexual relations were based solely on a promise of marriage. The consensual nature of the relationship over an extended period diminishes the credibility of claims that the relationship was predicated on such a promise.

●        Potential for Misuse of Legal Provisions

The Court expressed concern that allowing rape charges in cases of long-term consensual relationships could lead to the misuse of legal provisions designed to protect genuine victims of sexual assault.

Legal Precedents and Implications

This judgment aligns with previous rulings where the Supreme Court distinguished between consensual relationships and instances where consent was obtained through deceit. In earlier cases, the Court held that a breach of a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is established that the promise was made with no intention of being fulfilled and was used solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.

The current judgment reinforces the principle that consensual sexual relationships between adults, even if they do not culminate in marriage, should not be subjected to criminal proceedings under the charge of rape, provided there is no evidence of force or deceit.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling serves as a significant clarification in the context of live-in relationships and allegations of rape based on false promises of marriage. By emphasizing the importance of consent and the nature of long-term relationships, the Court aims to balance the protection of genuine victims of sexual assault with the prevention of potential misuse of legal provisions. This judgment underscores the necessity of examining the specifics of each case to ensure that justice is served appropriately.