15 years of live-in relationship, a child and breakup: Can it attract rape charges, questions SC, suggests mediation

Image: IANS


The Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether the breakdown of a long live-in relationship, where the couple had lived together for 15 years and had a child, can attract charges of rape after the man walks out of the relationship.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea by a woman who accused a man of sexual assault on the promise of marriage after a 15-year live-in relationship. The Court noted that the two had cohabited for a long period and had a child, and expressed doubt over whether such circumstances would attract criminal liability.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned whether the essential ingredients of the offence were made out, observing that a consensual relationship continuing over many years could not be converted into a criminal case upon breakup.

It pointedly asked whether a man walking out of such a relationship would, in itself, constitute a criminal offence.

The petitioner stated that she was an 18-year-old widow when she met the accused, who allegedly promised to marry her. Acting on this assurance, she entered into a relationship and lived with him for over a decade and a half, during which they had a child. She alleged that later she discovered he was already married and had relationships with other women.

The Court, however, indicated that the duration and nature of the relationship, along with the delay in lodging the complaint (15 years after she entered the relationship), raised serious legal concerns. It observed that while the petitioner’s situation may evoke sympathy, criminal law cannot be invoked without clearly establishing the elements of an offence.

The Bench also declined to expand the scope of the case to allegations involving other women, stating that it would confine itself to the facts concerning the present petitioner.

While suggesting that the woman may explore other remedies, including maintenance for the child, the Court emphasised that criminal prosecution requires a clear legal basis. It subsequently referred the dispute to mediation.