Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the recent judgement NANDAKUMAR & ANR. VS THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. recognize Live-In relationship as a legal for the adults to live freely together without marriage. The objective of the apex court is the protection of the women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In recent days, couple used to live together and in between the cohabitation there mutual bonding becomes strong which led the physical relationship between them. Earlier women cannot claim maintenance or alimony but after the recent judgement women in live-in-relation can seek the court for maintenance or alimony.
In all this, there is great hardship faced by a man in the live-In relation after break up. Nowadays women in live-In relation on account of disputes between the couple that led to the consequence of break up. They make their anger and frustration out by alleging the man in which they are in relationship with the false allegations of rape under section 375 of I.P.C..
Rape is defined u/s 375 I.P.C. reads as under: 375.
Rape: A man is said to commit 'rape' who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:—
- Against her will.
- Without her consent.
- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
A physical relation on the pretext of marriage is not considered as the offence of rape. There are several grounds on which the accused can prove that the physical relation during live-in relationship not amounts to rape but it is the consensual sex. Consensual sex is the physical relation takes place between the couple with the consent of the women.
If once the live-in relationship is established then there are several factors become favorable for the accused. In rape cases there is no limitation of time for lodging F.I.R. supported by various judgements.
Grounds for the accused to get acquitted from the false allegations of rape
- Physical relation takes place between the couples before the pretext of marriage proposal.
- Whether the consent was given wholly understanding the nature and consequences of the sexual indulgence.
- Consent not obtained by misrepresentation.
- Intention of the accused at the time of proposal of marriage.
Once it was proved that sexual intercourse between the couple takes place is not rape but consensual sex, then women can sue the men in Civil court on ground of Breach of Promise to marry. There are several judgement in which accused are acquitted by the Hon'ble court.
Rohit Tiwari vs State, on 24 May 2016, Delhi High Court
Testimony does not inspire confidence and circumstantial evidence do not lend any in the support of the same. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and get order of acquittal.
Uday vs State of Karnataka on 19 February,2003, Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be give under a misconception of fact.
Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State of (NCT) of Delhi on 26 August,2009, Hon'ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. It can be stated with the certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not of such quality which can place reliance upon.
State vs Amit Kumar on 22 November, 2014, Delhi High Court
Live-in relationship is established and physical relation takes place before the promise of the pretext of marriage. This led to the acquittal of the accused.