Chhattisgarh High Court Clarifies Legal Stance on Live-in Relationships
The Chhattisgarh High Court, on June 29, delivered a significant ruling clarifying that when adults are engaged in a long-term live-in relationship, the law presumes their physical interactions are consensual. Consequently, if the man later declines to marry the woman, it does not amount to rape. This decision was rendered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay S. Agrawal and Narendra Kumar Vyas.
Court’s Perspective on Promises and Consent
In their detailed judgment, the court emphasized that while partners in live-in relationships might express intentions to marry, such statements do not automatically imply that the relationship was contingent solely on a marriage promise. “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,” the bench noted.
The court further indicated that, given the increasing financial independence of women, a “pedantic approach” should be avoided in these cases. Instead, courts should evaluate the relationship’s duration and the parties’ behavior to ascertain if consent is presumed.
Case Background
This ruling originated from an appeal filed by a woman contesting the acquittal of a man she accused of rape and unnatural sex. The woman, a 40-year-old Project Manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation, recounted that she met the accused during their MBA studies at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Raipur, in 2019. She claimed that he promised marriage, which led to their physical relationship and cohabitation for approximately two years.
However, post their MBA, the accused allegedly avoided marriage discussions, later stating parental opposition due to her age, divorcee status, and Christian faith. On November 28, 2021, she asserted that he coerced her into unnatural sexual intercourse. In December 2022, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed under Sections 376 (rape) and 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code.
More Read
Trial and High Court’s Examination
The trial court acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. Upon appeal, the High Court scrutinized the case, noting the woman’s willingness to settle the matter for ₹30 lakh through the Women’s Commission. However, a proposed settlement of ₹15 lakh fell through, leading to further complications.
The bench also observed that the woman acknowledged that marriage would only proceed with familial approval. Her brother testified that the relationship was a consensual love affair despite differing community backgrounds. The medical examination corroborated no signs of forced or unnatural intercourse, which was pivotal in the court’s decision.
Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court’s findings, reinforcing that the relationship was consensual. The court stated, “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 woman’s appeal was thus dismissed.
More Read
[Read Order]
