Supreme Court of India clarified that ending a live-in relationship does not automatically constitute a criminal offence. B. V. Nagarathna emphasized distinction between consensual relationships and criminal liability in sexual offence allegations.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that ending a live-in relationship alone does not automatically amount to a criminal offence. Justice B. V. Nagarathna made these observations while hearing a petition filed by a woman who accused a man of rape and assault, alleging it was based on a false promise of marriage. The Court used the case to clarify the line between consensual relationships and criminal liability arising from sexual offences.
The dispute stemmed from a relationship in which the parties had lived together for several years and had a child. The petitioner later claimed that the relationship was founded on a false assurance that the man would marry her. During the hearing, the Court examined the nature of consent in such a long period of cohabitation.
Also Read: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
Justice Nagarathna remarked,
“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 Court effectively questioned how a relationship that appeared consensual over time could later be framed as a criminal offence.
While acknowledging that these remarks may be viewed by some as insensitive, the Court emphasised the legal relevance of consent when deciding criminal culpability.
The judge observed,
“Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship?” .
It further stated,
“This is what happens in live-in relationships. For years, they lived together. When they split up, the lady files a complaint against the man for sexual assault. These are all the vagaries of relationships outside marriage.”
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the accused had approached the woman when she was young and had promised to marry her. It was also alleged that the man was already married multiple times, a fact claimed to have been unknown to the woman. However, the Court made it clear that it was limiting its assessment to the circumstances of the present case, rather than considering any wider pattern of behaviour.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: “Live-In Relationship Goes Against Women’s Interest”
Justice Nagarathna also questioned why the petitioner continued the relationship and had a child without formalising the marriage. At the same time, the Court indicated sympathy for her position, noting that remedies such as maintenance for the child remain available.
Overall, the Court underscored that although relationships outside marriage may involve social and legal complications, the breakdown of such relationships cannot automatically translate into criminal proceedings.
The Court observed,
“There can be an illegitimate relationship, but the child (born from such a relationship) cannot be illegitimate. If there were a marriage, then her rights would have been better.”
In the end, while not treating the matter as a straightforward criminal dispute, the Court encouraged the parties to consider an amicable settlement and mediation. It reinforced the view that criminal law should not be triggered merely because a consensual relationship ends.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE