The Supreme Court of India on Monday raised significant questions regarding the classification of sexual assault in long-term consensual live-in relationships. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned how a consensual partnership spanning 15 years could be treated as a criminal offense after the partner “walks out.”
The observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by a woman challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order. The High Court had previously quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against her former live-in partner, whom she accused of sexual assault under the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
Background of the Dispute
According to the woman’s counsel, the petitioner, who had lost her husband previously, was introduced to the accused by her brother-in-law. The two entered into a live-in relationship that lasted 15 years, during which they had a child together, who is now seven years old.
The woman alleged that the accused had promised to marry her but instead sexually exploited her. Her lawyer further submitted that the accused was already married and had concealed this fact from the petitioner.
“What is the Offense?”: Court’s Analysis
Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the legal basis of the criminal charges given the duration and consensual nature of the union.
“Where is the question of offense when there is a consensual relationship? They were living together and she also had a child from him and then there is no marriage and now, she says sexual assault? For 15 years they lived together,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The bench highlighted the inherent legal vulnerabilities of live-in relationships compared to marriage. Justice Nagarathna noted that the absence of a “legal bond” means either party can exit the arrangement at any time without the same repercussions found in a matrimonial contract.
“He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out, that is the risk in a live-in relationship. So once he walks out, it does not become a criminal offense,” the Justice stated.
The Court pointed out that had the parties been legally married, the petitioner would have had access to specific legal remedies such as filing for bigamy or claiming maintenance. “Now since there is no marriage, they live together, this is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?” the bench added.
Focus on Child Welfare and Mediation
While skeptical of the criminal charges, the Court expressed concern for the welfare of the seven-year-old child born from the relationship. Justice Nagarathna suggested that the petitioner should explore monetary compensation and child maintenance rather than focusing solely on criminal prosecution.
“Even if he goes to jail, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child… At least, some monetary compensation can be made for the child,” the Court observed.
The apex court ultimately issued a notice in the matter and directed both parties to explore the possibility of a settlement through mediation.
