By Our Correspondent, New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that an accused cannot be tried for rape solely on the grounds of refusing marriage after a consensual long-term live-in relationship. Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Mishra stated that when two consenting adults engage in such a relationship, it is presumed they did so with full awareness of the consequences. The court dismissed an FIR filed by a woman alleging rape against a man after their relationship ended.
Court’s Reasoning on Consent
Citing a Bar and Bench report, the court observed, “If two competent adults live together for years and engage in a consensual relationship, it must be assumed they chose this arrangement willingly and were aware of its implications. Claiming the relationship was based on a promise of marriage is not acceptable.” The court emphasized that alleging physical relations were solely due to a marriage promise is unreliable, especially when the FIR lacks such specifics.
Changing Social Dynamics
The bench noted societal shifts over recent decades, with more women becoming financially independent and making autonomous life choices, leading to a rise in live-in relationships. The court cautioned against a technical approach, urging consideration of the relationship’s duration and the conduct of both parties to infer mutual consent, regardless of any intent to marry.
Case Background and Verdict
The ruling came while quashing an FIR against Ravish Singh Rana, accused of rape and assault by a woman he met on Facebook. The couple lived together in a live-in relationship, but the woman later alleged Rana promised marriage, engaged in physical relations, and assaulted her when she pressed for marriage. The Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision, stating, “The accused cannot face a rape trial merely for refusing marriage. There is also no concrete evidence for other allegations like assault or misconduct.”