The Supreme Court of India made key observations while hearing a case involving a live-in relationship, raising questions about how a consensual relationship can later be termed as rape.
The case concerns a woman who alleged that her partner had sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage. During the hearing, Justice B. V. Nagarathna examined the nature of the complaint and the timeline of the relationship.
The court noted that the relationship continued for several years with mutual consent and that the couple had lived together as partners. The woman had also given birth to a child during this period. In this context, the bench questioned how a long-standing consensual relationship could later be classified as sexual assault after it ended.
At the same time, the court also took note of the woman’s claims. Her counsel argued that she had been misled, as the man was already married and had concealed this fact. It was also submitted that he may have acted similarly in other cases.
The court raised questions about the choices made during the relationship, including why it continued without formalising marriage. However, it also acknowledged that such situations can be complex and cannot be viewed in a simplistic manner.
Importantly, the bench clarified that children born out of such relationships should not face any disadvantage. It observed that the woman is entitled to seek maintenance for the child.
The court suggested that both parties consider resolving the matter through mediation instead of pursuing a prolonged legal dispute.
The observations underline the legal complexities surrounding live-in relationships, consent and allegations that arise after relationships break down.
In such cases, the law is not just about consent or allegation alone, but about understanding intent, context and the timeline of the relationship.
