Supreme Court Questions Criminal Charge Of Sexual Assault In Long-Term Live-In Relationship The Supreme Court on Monday raised critical questions about the validity of a criminal charge of sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage in a long-term live-in relationship. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was examining a woman’s plea against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to dismiss her FIR under Sections 69, 115(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024. The FIR accused her former live-in partner of exploitation through a false marriage promise. The woman alleged that the accused, who was already married, had lured her at a young age, concealed his marital status, and promised to marry her. She claimed he sexually exploited her after she became a widow. During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna emphasized the need to scrutinize the nature of the relationship, questioning why the complainant had chosen to live with the accused before marriage and why she delayed filing the complaint. She remarked that such inquiries could be perceived as victim-shaming, but stressed the importance of examining the facts. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accused had manipulated the complainant’s vulnerability after she became a widow at 18. They contended that the accused had promised marriage, leading her to enter the relationship, only to abandon her later. Justice Nagarathna, however, highlighted the inherent risks of live-in relationships, noting that separation does not automatically constitute a criminal offense. She pointed out that the complainant had lived with the accused for 15 years, had a child with him, and that his departure was a natural consequence of the lack of a legal marriage bond.#supreme_court #madhya_pradesh_high_court #justice_bv_nagarathna #justice_ujjal_bhuyan #bharatiya_nyaya_sanhita_2024
Supreme Court Questions Validity of Rape Allegations in Live-In Relationship Case The Supreme Court addressed the legal complexities of live-in relationships during a hearing involving a woman who accused her partner of rape, assault, and exploitation. Justice BV Nagarathna, presiding over the case, emphasized that walking out of a live-in relationship does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offense. The court highlighted the distinction between consensual cohabitation and criminal sexual acts, raising concerns about the potential misuse of legal processes in such cases. The petitioner, a woman, alleged that her live-in partner had raped and assaulted her, falsely claiming the relationship was part of a marriage. However, the court stressed that the dissolution of a non-marital relationship cannot serve as grounds for criminal charges unless there is clear evidence of violence or exploitation. Justice Nagarathna questioned the validity of the woman’s allegations, noting that the relationship had been consensual. “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?” she asked, challenging the narrative that a consensual relationship could lead to criminal charges. The judge acknowledged that such questions might be perceived as victim-shaming but insisted that the nature of consent is a critical factor in determining legal culpability. “Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship?” she posed, underscoring the need to differentiate between lawful cohabitation and criminal behavior.#supreme_court #justice_bv_nagarathna #live_in_relationships #rape_allegations #consensual_relationship
