The Supreme Court has raised sharp questions over a rape complaint filed by a woman against her former live-in partner, observing that the case highlights the complicated legal boundary between consensual relationships and criminal allegations after a relationship breaks down. The court’s remarks came while hearing a petition from a woman who accused a man of rape, assault and exploitation, claiming he had promised to marry her before abandoning the relationship.
During the hearing, Justice B V Nagarathna pointed to the nature of the relationship and questioned how a long-term domestic partnership could later become the basis for criminal charges. Referring to the facts presented before the court, the judge remarked, “This is a live-in relationship. She went on to have a child with the man without marriage, and now she is saying rape and assault. What is this?”
The bench noted that walking away from a live-in relationship by itself does not amount to a criminal offence. The court stressed that when two adults willingly choose to live together outside marriage, the issue of consent must be examined carefully before criminal provisions are invoked. Justice Nagarathna further asked, “Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship?”
According to the woman’s lawyer, the complainant met the accused when she was 18 and was allegedly unaware that he was already married. Counsel argued that the man had promised to marry her and maintained the relationship for years under that assurance. The woman later approached the court claiming she had been emotionally and physically exploited after the relationship collapsed.
The Supreme Court, however, appeared cautious about allowing criminal law to be used in cases where long-term relationships later turn bitter. Justice Nagarathna observed, “This is what happens in live-in relationships. For years, they lived together. When they split up, the lady files a complaint against the man for sexual assault.”
At the same time, the court made it clear that the woman may still have legal remedies in civil law, particularly concerning the child born from the relationship. The bench noted that the child’s rights remain protected regardless of the parents’ marital status. Justice Nagarathna said, “There can be an illegitimate relationship, but the child cannot be illegitimate.”
The court also encouraged both sides to consider mediation rather than prolonged litigation, signalling that not every failed relationship should automatically become a criminal prosecution. Legal observers say the remarks reflect the judiciary’s growing concern over the misuse of rape laws in cases involving long-term consensual relationships that later deteriorate.
The case has once again sparked debate over how Indian courts interpret consent in live-in relationships. While the final ruling is still awaited, the hearing has already reopened a wider national conversation about whether criminal law should be used to settle deeply personal disputes after a relationship ends.
