i also agree that if boys are taught about what such breach of trust may lead to !

In most cases, the boy will walk away, unless if he is caught in flagrant délit...

If the girl gets pregnant, he will easily claim that the girl was of "loose character" and that she was "friendly" with many other boys. If there is some affection and if both are old enough, they may decide to get married, otherwise the girl has the choice of getting the pregnancy terminated or becoming an unwed mother or putting up the baby for adoption.

I agree that this is all grossly unfair to the fair s*x but this is how the good Lord has made things.

Since we are on this subject, I must also mention another problem that many young girls face, that of incest. This is far more cruel and insidious than rape. And this is far more prevalent than one many believe.

All said, it is very tough to be born a woman, unless one is born a princess or a beauty like Aishwarya Roy!!!!

[I] Wish this live-in turned into Rape case happened   in Tamil Nadu and not in Delhi NCR; this guy would then have got bail  - right !

M Vandhana

Express News Service

Last Updated : 15 Nov 2011 10:31:58 AM IST

MADURAI: Clearly distinguishing between an approved live-in relationship and an induced s*xual relationship, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a man cannot be convicted for rape in case of a failed live in relationship.

Thanks to this fine line of legal distinction by Justice S Tamilvanan, a Tiruchy-based man Karthick, who had married an Indian woman “after a two-year live-in relationship” with an NRI in Australia, has been temporarily spared a seven years rigorous imprisonment term.

A trial court in Tiruchy had imposed the sentence on Karthick while holding him guilty of committing ‘rape’ in a case based on a complaint filed by 29-year-old Kavitha.

The prosecution’s case was that during his stay in Sydney, Karthick had developed an affair with Kavitha, the daughter of an Indian restaurateur, who had migrated to Australia 13 years ago.

Thereafter, the two started living together “like husband and wife” in a separate house and got engaged in September 2007. But in July 2009, Karthick flew back to India to get married to one Immaculate. On learning about this, Kavitha came to Tiruchy and filed a police complaint against Karthick.

Relying on the prosecution, the trial judge convicted Karthick of committing rape under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Seeking a direction to suspend the sentence, Karthick moved the High Court here. His counsel Veera Kathiravan argued that since the complainant was a major aged around 25 years when she began living in with Karthick, the charge of rape can’t be raised. The ingredients to constitute an offence of rape — such as “against her will”, “without her consent” or “forced consent” — were absent in this case.

Accepting the argument, Justice Tamilvanan held: “Admittedly, the prosecutrix is not an illiterate woman, but highly education, having affluent status. There was love affair between the petitioner/accused and the prosecutrix…Even as per the complaint, the occurrence had taken place continuously for about two years since 2007, after they started living together. Hence, it (physical relationship) is not possible without the consent of prosecutrix.”

The judge observed that at best Karthick can be convicted only on the charge of giving “false assurance to marry her for getting her consent to have s*xual relationship with her and subsequently, fail to comply with his promise,” which would attract a maximum punishment of a year’s jail along with fine.

Holding that there was no prima facie ground to constitute a rape, he suspended the sentence imposed on Karthick and granted bail.

Source:

https://expressbuzz.com/topic/can%E2%80%99t-be-convicted-for-rape-in-live-in-relation/333298.html


[II] A QUICK LOOK IN TO WHAT COULD NOT BE TERMED AS A ‘LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP’?

A teenage girl or boy spending together their time a couple of day’s outside their homes, and returning to their respective nests.

NO

A man and woman on vacation spending their time together in a holiday resort or in a Hotel, a few days and returning to their nests.

NO

THEN WHAT COULD BE TERMED AS A PROPER ‘LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP’?

In my view the following conditions to be met and the ambience should be prevalent for a perfect life under ‘Live-in-relationship’

- Both the man and woman should be in their senses and matured enough to lead a life like a married couple (Teenagers are prohibited)

- Both should be matured enough to lead a life (because it is not a marriage of binding)

- Marriage should not be a pre condition. If Marriage is a pre-condition it sans sense, and connotes that they have no belief in the ‘Live-in-relationship’ itself.

- The couple cannot live in a Hotel, Guest House etc. They should live in a perfect Home. The house should comprise of at least one bedroom, one hall for visitors and relatives, one Kitchen (a must) a balcony etc.

- The house should possess in a similar way of a newly married couple, a TV, Fridge, Wardrobe, a roof or balcony for garden,  a pooja room etc.

- Either of them should cook their own food, at least one a day, either a breakfast or Dinner at least a couple of days in a week.

- Ordering every day food for home delivery like pizzas and Biryani’s are prohibited. Instead they can go out for dinner etc.

CONCLUSION

Life is meant to enjoy. Life is joy. Sex is not taboo, but hypocrisy is. Female has certain sensibilities, man should respect. He cannot keep promising her of a definite Marriage. Woman will be hurt if such promise if made but broken. Man has certain convictions and a little ego, a lovable one towards his life partner. She should respect and reciprocate his Trust. She has no moral right to breach the trust the man reposed on her, before having s*x as and when wished by both.

Let the woman herself realize how fallacy her charge of Rape, when on many day’s at many memorable moments she herself would have approached his man in bed, with her caressing of his hair, with a lovable kiss on his forehead, with her wit and affection pulled her man in to her heart, spend the night pleasantly and today you turn that night a day of night mare to your own man? Is it not absurd?

Woman should prepare to face the life after ‘live-in-relationship’ and in no way she can command her man to forego the freedom or force for a nuptial knot. Because such pre-condition cannot be a pre requisite before entering in to a ‘Live-in-relationship’

The woman in our story should have confined her charge to ‘Breach of trust’ etc but should not to have gone to the extent of charging ‘Rape’

Even a promise of marriage if made by the man, during a ‘live in relationship’ does not carry any moral or legal estoppels. She or He should be prepared for the life of her own after ‘Live-in-relationship’

It has become evident now, that such a Live in relationship is a farce and more so, if such relationship ensues in to a confrontation when it is broken (?)

Let us pray for a better social sense to prevail upon us, the Marriage be the epithet of Human Life.

Credits: KRISHNA BAALU

Now have a look at the decision of greatest Jstc. Of D HC, Delhi’s common man praise him till date for in annexed Judgment (facts are more or quite closer to this popular debate in LCI playing round robin)

[@ Vishwa your abv. large para in your last post is craftily handled (replied) by Jstc. SND of D HC in annexed Judgment which is what you spoke before us]  

 This is laughable and absurd.

This is due to confusion of the clash of western and India values I was talking about.

the wester culture believes taht man and woman needs to choose partners themselves and tat include stest of compatibility-which then includes compatibility in s*x, domestic affairs, companionship etc etc. If not compatible or doubts about compatibility or for any reason whatsoever one partner may decide not to marry the other. The other has a free choice to get out of the relationship anytime.

That is exactly what the boy did. What is wrong in that? This is what 'woman empowerment laws' have brought us into -enjoy!!

Indian society is still beholden to old (and good if I may add) traditions and the arranged marriage was regard to that. Assuming that he will run with some other is nonsense. He has decided that the current woman is good only for companionship and not marraige material! The woman was unfit to be his wife in his eyes! He has the right to choose whoever he wants! So does she! If she was smart she would have done what he did as well-marry another guy! She still could have, had she been smart enough to not file cases. She filed cases only to negate her role in the 8 year relationship and make it look like she was forced into it. Nobody should be fooled by this act! The action of hon'ble SC is incompatible overall. I think the judges emotions, their belief's etc should have nothing to do with their decisions when they sit on the judges chair. I hope even hon'ble SC does not forget this as their decisions have weight through out the country. A very sad day indeed!

Giving him bail is the least the hon'ble SC could have done. My opinion is they should have dismissed the case outright. There is no case-unless the girl has proofs that he was misleading her that he was going to marry her. Even then after 8 years????

Maybe he was well off, maybe she dreamt of good life, maybe she thought of him as a good catch-if these were there- it could be presumed she was the one who wanted to stay in the 'relationship' and hoped he would change his mind and marry her. If that was her 'belief' why should the man be held? It doesn't make sense.

If you are not married you are not married. The distinction of marriage vs liveins must be clear. The girl is under no obligation  to stay in livein. She stays in livein because of the perks of such a relationship.She is under no obligation of a wife under marriage. (But it is entirely another fact that the distinction is not made out because in India the wife has no obligation either-albeit she has abundant capability and consent of government to misuse the law!)

A. I agree to Saurabh V. on Bail.
B. Is this the first incident re. to live-in relationship in India? I don't think so…..jago Indian mens’ in live-ins give us a news from your side too where your statement sends your female live-in partner to jail….woh din kaab ayega iss desh mein?
C. From Madurai traveling via Mumbai to Delhi in JC (judicial custody) now it is high time someone writes Dummies Guide to Rape (in live-in relationships).


[II] Chastity cannot be treated as property: HC

PTI | 06:05 PM, May 17, 2012

[III] Woman alleges rape by live-in partner
IANS Jan 25, 2012, 07.46PM IST

NEW DELHI: A 26-year-old woman, who was in a live-in relationship with her friend for the last three years, has alleged that she was being raped by him for long and kept quite as she was afraid of being kicked out of their joint business, police said Tuesday.

According to police, the couple was residing in east Delhi's Mayur Vihar Phase I and were in the business of interior decoration.

Police have registered a case regarding the incident and is probing the matter while the qeationning of the 30-year-old accused Kamal is on.

"The woman has complained that Kamal had been raping her for quite some time now and had threatened her of dire consequences if she reported the matter to anyone. He wanted the relationship to continue at any cost," said a police official.

"She was afraid of bearing financial losses if she was thrown out of the joint business by the accused and kept mum," added the official.

Source:
https://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/delhi/30662518_1_live-in-partner-live-in-relationship-joint-business

[IV] Jet Airways pilot arrested for rape, cheating
Saturday, May 29, 2010, 20:18

Mumbai: A Jet Airways pilot was arrested here Saturday on charges of rape and cheating following a complaint against him by an air hostess with whom he was in a relationship, a police official said.

"The woman had registered a case with us May 27. Our policemen Saturday brought the pilot, Varun Agarwal, to the Powai police station for questioning and later arrested him," said Asha Korke, the investigating officer at the police station in suburban Andheri.

Agarwal was in a live-in relationship with the woman since 2008. "He had promised to marry her soon. In fact they had also fixed up a date - April 28 - for the wedding," Korke said.

"When he did not marry her on the said date, she confronted him and when nothing worked out, she lodged a complaint here Thursday," Korke added.

Agarwal has been arrested under Indian Penal Code Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 376 (punishment for rape), 417 (punishment for cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation).

Despite repeated attempts, Jet Airways spokespersons in Mumbai and New Delhi were not available for their comments.

Agarwal will be brought before a court Sunday (Means he was also not given Bail till then – any update on this case !), Korke said.

Source:
https://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/jet-airways-pilot-arrested-for-rape-cheating_630125.html

Long term prudent remedy - Chastity pedlock for Indian men

Laws should be made and rendered so as to bring harmony in the society. The way Indian laws are being rendered, it seems the law makers are interested punish men for any atrocities born by women to which he was not even indirectly responsible or engaged.

Thats how laws emopwering women like 498a, DV Act and DPA are being iterated and implemented.

These laws remind me that we are not trying to uplift one cadre but giving them sword to kill those who they don't like (legally). Even if we agree that women were suppressed, then what does it has to do with today's youth who do not even give an angry stair to their spouses?? How are these innocent husbands and boys related to these cries? Why are they being punished?

These are revengful laws and not to uplift but to allow one cadre to take revenge.

Till now no one tried to reduce the definition of "Rape". Can someone try a definition which cannot be misused?

In my considered view, the definition of rape that exists today, only shows that it covers wider range and types but it does not allow modern era rape - "promise of marriage". C'mon fellas,.......atleast try!!!!!!!!!!

//peace

/Saurabh..

I absolutely commend Saurabji, Tajabosji and Vishwaji for their wonderful perspective.This is the sort of discussion that must have happened in parliament when laws are considered-not the chuckling, jokes, nostalgia etc. They do not contribute to the functioning of society nor to prudent laws.

Saurabji-a absolutely important question on rape-as it is being misused increasingly today!

Live in relationships are legal as far as Hon'ble SC is concerned. The character of Live in relationship is:

1) It does not promise marriage! The idea of live in itself negates that marriige will happen-it may happen-but it cannot be for sure!

2) Live in entails s*xual intercourse-that is its nature.

3) Only mature people who understand should get into it.

4) It is a voluntary relationship.

As it pertains to rape and cheating charges live in relationship must be specifically excluded. There is no scope for it! Also DV influence on such relationship must be reduced specifically to physical violence and nothing more-since relationship can be ended anytime if the parties do not feel like continuing it. DV act should be amended to exclude the application of other provisions. There is no scope for it in live in relations.

Saurabji as currently constituted IPC 375 does define rape adequately.It is the extrapolation of it by the courts that has brought this problem.It is unfortunate that the highest court of the land renders judgement this way.

The act of the man in live in relationship does not come under any of the six subsections that constitute rape!

Let us compare this with another example: Investments!

One can invest in

1) fixed deposits/ bond- low risk-low/ moderate yield-depends on how desperate the government/ corporation is to get money.

2) Stocks and shares: moderate to high risk-moderate to high yield! Depends on how much risk a person can/ wants to take.

Both type of investments gives the promise of yield!

Arranged marriage is/ used to be similar to low risk-low/ moderate yield investment. Girl does get to say yes or no in the end when all the leg work is done by parents, relatives and friends! It carries sanctions and support of all those involved. But the girl/ woman or boy/Man does not have the sample/idea of what the compatibility really is-that is the risk. The risk mitigation is through adjustment by the married couple and the support given by others involved to make it work. This is similar to gevernment which will mitigate risks and make sure that the investor gets his promised return. The risk however is still not zero-as governments may collapse and may become bankrupt-as in Greece today! Once an individual invests in it one is expected to stay until the term agreed to!

Live in relation is akin to stock market-risk and yield are higher-It can be played short or long term based on the risk the individual investor can/want to take. the company will promise growth and big return in future-to lure investors. It is the investor howver who is needed to do due deligence and workup to see whether or not the claims of the company is valid. It is also his responsibility to review periodically both the performance and the trajectory the company is on to give the yield it is promised. If not, the investor can take the money out and take the loss in the process and can invest elsewhere where there is a greater probability of profit. That is the risk! So are we going to now charge all companies of false promises because they failed to give the investor a profit? Cheating only comes into play only in rare circumstances of cases similar to Satyam/Enron etc.

In live in the person can withdraw from the relationship (i.e investment) if the trajectory of their relationship is not according to one's expectation or liking anytime they wish to! Sexual intercourse is a part of the investment expected in a live in relationship.

The other instrument of investment is the much safer i.e savings bank account! It is low yield/ low risk investment. One can close the account anytime-but is assured of the low interest as long as they keep the deposit! This is akin to being single and not going for a live in or marriage. The choice is of the individual!

Hopefully this analogy explains the basic contours of where each stands-marriage, live ins and being single!

One must understand that all relationships are an investment!

we seem to be passing thru a transitional period. on the one hand, we have the conservative and orthodox family marriages with great pomp and show and on the other the western oriented system of live in relationship let loose by the judiciary on the society ............. which way to go and why ? such questions will keep cropping up and the y gen has to decide which way to go and why?

 Absolutely-that is exactly what I said earlier. But the types of debates in parliament should be a reflection of that. The judiciary is also expected to play a pivotal role. Unfortunately the case in question raises doubts on these issues.

The man should get bail irrespective. He is newly married and his rights should be respected. The rights of the bride should also be taken into concern.

@ Saurabh V.


Highly appreciate your call for debate to try a gender neutral definition on Rape after Law Commission of India's 172nd. report which cannot be misused in relation to Live-in relationships.


For reform of rape laws to be effective it has to be accompanied by a much wider range of prudent writers read with vehement ground level actions to tackle patriarchal institutions including the Judiciary and the Central and State Legislatures which will eventually have to pass the law. You and we all have read MP's verbatim discussions in Parliament on Marriage Law Amendment Bill, 2010 after which nothing more desired to be said as brownie point.


It is easy for right now for just four writers of LCI to support legal initiatives around s*xual wrongs being done on men in case of live-in relationships but when you do not have wider cross section of LCI writers participating in such debates read with simultaneous movement to support s*xual rights across various platforms you will end up with a highly moralistic and protectionist piece of definition as vehemently sought by you.


With pain I say LCI is not a mature platform right now for making an attempt to try a definition on Rape which cannot be misused? It is too juicy a topic for many here to wash their hands off in a jiffy.


Gather consensus and then let us put application of wide spectrum of legal minds to discuss such bold juicy topics in LCI and elevate its position from competitor. 

According to me, the definition of rape should be:

"The carnal knowledge of one person by another without free will of the former."

Was that difficult to build or form? This definition, in my view, covers EVERY aspect as required by the S.375 & S.376.

The implied rape "promise of marriage" finds no place in this definition because it is NEVER a rape. That's only a metaphor. How could you convert a smooth, exciting & enjoyed intercourse into a rape? Just because the "man" don't want to marry the girl? What if the boy discovered a secret about the girl which compels him to live away from her? Isn't he entitled to take a decision after he discover something unpleasant about the girl? To marry a girl, the ONLY prerequisite' is SEX? Ohhh........c'mon you guyz!

Law should not take a course which leads to a confused generation! 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

After mature reflection, the boy may feel that the girl is not the ideal life partner for him and decide not to go ahead with the marriage. The girl also has the same option but I note that no such fuss is made when a girl jilts a boy.

Is it a crime to change one's mind?

Saurabh agree it is a simple definition. But current IPC 375 is OK and promises do not count. It is the judiciary's interpretation and extrapolation in cases which is causing the trouble. This is due to:

1) Old thinking of s*x is sacred-It is confined to marriage. This is ideal thinking practically never true. It was not true in the past,not now and probably not in the future. Equating s*x with marriage is the fallacy. Such things as rape being compounded when the rapist marries the girl is borne out of this kind of thinking!

2) The used good theory- Woman who has/ had s*x is second rate and used good/second hand goods! There are folks thinking this way even here-which is absurd thinking.

3) Lack of understanding of Live- in relationship.

One problem with your definition if I may add is-it doesn't cover minors i.e minors even if they consent, it is still rape because their consent is still invalid! 

@Bhim Bhalla

Do you think that imposing minors for restrictions in criminal law would stop them from experimenting?

Only if a minor girl islured into s*x, it amounts to rape. Isnt this discrimination against the minor boys?

What world are we leading?

Additionally, my definition adds "free will" as a word which forbids s*x with anyone who don't want it and also it restricts s*x with such tender age child who don't have knowledge about it. I hope it answers your post.

Minors should be given consultation and not criminal sentences. There should be moral obligation put on minors themselves who should resolve into good moral human being. It's a crime world-wide, but minors themselves engage into such things and don't tell anyone. How does that changes the scenario to the one which gets exposed?

Our laws needs to be redressed with "Modern" outlook if girls are ready for it. If girls arenot ready to be modern then lets snatch all the rights given under the garb of women liberation. It can't stay as two-edged sword which would "always" keep hanging on the guys and women would have a free day!

//peace

/Saurabh..V