Man refusing to marry long-term live-in partner won’t amount to rape: chhattisgarh high court

Can a long live-in relationship later become a rape case only because marriage did not happen? Chhattisgarh High Court explains why adult consent, conduct and long relationship history matter.

BILASPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that when two adults are in a long live-in relationship, a later refusal by the man to marry the woman will not automatically amount to rape.

The Court said that in such relationships, both parties usually understand the nature and consequences of their decision. A desire or discussion about marriage during a live-in relationship does not by itself prove that the physical relationship happened only because of a promise of marriage.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay S Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas passed the ruling on June 29 while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman against the acquittal of a man accused of rape and unnatural s*x.

The Bench observed, “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 Court also said that while examining such cases, courts should not take a “pedantic approach”. Instead, they must look at the full facts, including the length of the relationship, the conduct of both parties and whether consent can be reasonably presumed.

The case involved a 40-year-old woman who was working as a Project Manager with the Bhilai Municipal Corporation. She alleged that she met the accused while studying for an MBA at the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur in 2019.

According to her, the accused had assured her that he would marry her. She claimed that because of this assurance, they entered into a physical relationship and lived together for around two years.

She further alleged that after completion of the MBA course, the accused started avoiding the topic of marriage.

Later, he allegedly told her that his parents were not ready for the marriage because she was older than him, divorced and Christian.

She also claimed that on November 28, 2021, when she went to his residence and again asked him to marry her, he subjected her to unnatural s*xual intercourse against her wishes.

On the basis of her complaint, an FIR was registered in December 2022 under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the trial court acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The woman then challenged the acquittal before the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The High Court examined the evidence and noted several important facts. During cross-examination, the woman admitted that she was ready to settle the dispute before the Women’s Commission for ₹30 lakh. The Court also noted that the accused had given a cheque of ₹15 lakh as part of the proposed settlement, but later stopped payment after the settlement did not take place.

The Court further noted that the woman herself admitted that both parties had agreed to marry only if their respective families consented. This became important because it showed that marriage was not an unconditional promise made only by the accused.

The Bench also considered the statement of the woman’s brother. He stated that the woman had told him that the physical relationship developed because both of them were in a love affair, even though they belonged to different communities.

The medical evidence also did not support the allegations of force. The doctor who examined the woman stated that she had not complained of forced s*xual intercourse or unnatural s*x during the medical examination. The doctor also found no injuries suggesting unnatural s*xual intercourse.

After considering the full evidence, the High Court held that the trial court was right in treating the relationship as consensual. The Court found that this was not a case where consent was obtained only on a false promise of marriage.

The Bench observed, “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 High Court finally upheld the acquittal of the accused and dismissed the woman’s appeal.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF ALL LAWS/SECTIONS MENTIONED

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Refusal to marry is not rape
  A man cannot be criminally punished only because a relationship did not end in marriage.
• Long live-in means consent matters
  When two adults live together for years courts must examine conduct not just later allegations.
• Broken relationship is not criminal liability
  Every failed love affair cannot become a criminal case against the man.
• Evidence must defeat emotion
  Medical evidence conduct settlement talks and contradictions matter more than one-sided accusations.
• Men need protection from relationship revenge cases
  Serious laws like rape cannot be used as pressure tools after marriage talks fail.

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.