In a significant observation on the legal complexities of live-in relationships, the Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether allegations of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage can stand in a case where a couple lived together for 15 years and had a child, indicating that the breakdown of such a relationship does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.
The remarks came during the hearing of a woman’s plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to quash an FIR she had filed against her former live-in partner under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2024. The woman had accused the man of sexually exploiting her on the false assurance of marriage.
Hearing the matter, a bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised serious questions about the nature of the allegations, especially given the long duration of the relationship and the fact that the couple had a child together.
Justice Nagarathna observed that when two adults are in a consensual relationship for years, it becomes difficult to classify the relationship as sexual assault merely because the marriage did not eventually happen.
The bench pointed out that the woman and the accused had lived together for 15 years, during which they shared a domestic relationship and had a child. The court said that in such circumstances, a later separation cannot automatically be treated as a criminal act.
The woman had argued that the accused, who was allegedly already married, had lured her into the relationship when she was young and vulnerable, after she became a widow. Her counsel told the court that the man promised to marry her, concealed his marital status, and exploited her emotionally and physically.
However, the court questioned why the woman remained in the relationship for such a long period before filing a complaint. Justice Nagarathna observed that if two people willingly choose to live together without marriage, the risks associated with such a relationship cannot later be turned into criminal charges simply because one partner walks away.
The court noted that live-in relationships do not provide the same legal protections as marriage, and that the absence of a formal legal bond means either partner may leave the relationship at any point.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that if the woman had been legally married, she could have pursued remedies such as maintenance or bigamy charges, but in a live-in relationship the legal consequences are different.
The bench made it clear that emotional disappointment or abandonment, though serious on a personal level, does not by itself amount to sexual assault under criminal law.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning and that the woman entered the relationship only because of that assurance. It was further submitted that the accused had taken advantage of her vulnerable condition as a young widow and had misused his position.
But the Supreme Court remained unconvinced that the facts, as presented, amounted to the criminal offence alleged. The judges questioned whether every failed live-in relationship could become the basis for a criminal complaint of sexual assault.
The court also raised concerns over the delay in filing the complaint, noting that the woman approached the law only after many years of cohabitation and after the relationship had broken down.
Justice Nagarathna said that in the absence of marriage, such relationships involve uncertainties, and the law cannot treat every separation as a criminal offence.
The Supreme Court’s observations are significant because they highlight the legal distinction between a consensual long-term live-in relationship and criminal sexual exploitation, especially in cases where allegations arise only after the relationship ends.
