SC questions rape charge in live-in relationship, says 'they had child together, now she says rape?'
The Supreme Court said ending a live-in relationship alone is not a crime and spoke of the importance of consent while hearing an assault case.
The Supreme Court of India recently made important observations while hearing a case involving allegations of rape and assault in a live-in relationship. The case was heard by Justice BV Nagarathna. The matter was brought by a woman who claimed that a man had assaulted her after promising marriage.
Consent and nature of relationship questioned
During the hearing, the court focused on the nature of the relationship between the two individuals. It noted that both were adults and had lived together for years. Justice Nagarathna questioned how a consensual relationship could later turn into a criminal allegation.
“This is a live-in relationship. She went on to have a child with the man without marriage, and now she is saying rape and assault. What is this?” The judge also stressed that understanding consent is very important in such cases.
“Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship?”
Court points risks in live-in relationships
The court pointed out that relationships outside marriage can carry certain risks. It said such situations often become complicated when the relationship ends.
“This is what happens in live-in relationships. For years, they lived together. When they split up, the lady files a complaint… These are all the vagaries of relationships outside marriage,” the judge said.
During the hearing, the woman’s lawyer said she was unaware that the man was already married. The court, however, said it would focus only on the facts of the present case.
The bench also showed concern for the woman’s situation and said she could seek support for her child. The court made it clear that even if the relationship is not legally recognised, the child’s rights remain important.
“There can be an illegitimate relationship, but the child… cannot be illegitimate. If there were a marriage, then her rights would have been better,” the judge noted. The court suggested that both sides should try to resolve the matter through mediation instead of continuing a legal battle.