‘Where is the question of offence?’: Supreme Court weighs allegations in 15-year live-in relationship

The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter, returnable on May 25, with a focus on exploring the possibility of a settlement between the parties.

Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned why the complainant chose to enter into and remain in a live-in arrangement for years before approaching the police. (Image enhanced using AI)

The First Information Report (FIR) accused the woman’s former live-in partner of exploiting her on the pretext of marriage.

The complainant alleged that the accused had drawn her into a relationship at a young age while hiding that he was already married.

“Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They are living together and she begets a child from him and then there is no marriage and then she says sexual assault? For how long they lived together? For 15 years they lived together,” Justice Nagarathna asked during the hearing, according to Livelaw.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Kuldeep Jauhari argued before the Supreme Court that the accused was known to the complainant’s family and had taken advantage of her vulnerability after she was widowed early in life. The counsel submitted that he had promised marriage and exploited her sexually on that basis.

However, the Supreme Court bench continued to probe the nature of the relationship, questioning why the complainant chose to enter into and remain in a live-in arrangement for years before approaching the police. “Why did she go and live with him before marriage? Now we ask these questions, they will say we are victim-shaming. What is this?” Justice Nagarathna asked.

The petitioner’s counsel maintained that the accused had concealed his existing marriage and that the complainant, who was around 18 at the time, entered into the relationship believing his assurance that he would marry her. It was argued that she was later abandoned.

Justice Nagarathna underscored that separation in such relationships does not automatically attract criminal liability. “She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out that is the risk in a live in relationship. So once he walks out, it doesn’t become a criminal offence,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Stronger legal protection in marriage

The Supreme Court judge further pointed out that legal protections would have been stronger had there been a formal marriage, noting the remedies available in such cases. “These are all the vagaries of a relationship outside marriage… See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together. This is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?”

While the petitioner alleged that the promise of marriage was false from the outset and that the accused had multiple relationships with other women, the bench declined to examine allegations beyond the present dispute. It also flagged the delay in lodging the complaint.

“Why at this point of time she has filed a complaint after how many years? See, they are all live in relationship. If they split, the lady has to file a complaint against on the man for sexual assault?” Justice Nagarathna remarked.

Even assuming that the complainant had been misled, the Supreme Court bench noted that the relationship spanned several years and resulted in the birth of a child. It indicated that civil remedies, particularly for the child’s welfare, may be more appropriate and suggested mediation.

“Even if he is put behind bars, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child. Child is now 7 years. So he (accused) has deserted her. Will you go for mediation? At least some monetary compensation can be made for the child,” the judge said.