38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, April 15, 2024
Judiciary

Consensual Sex Between Live-In Partners Not Rape If Man Fails To Marry Woman Says SC [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      04 January, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Consensual Sex Between Live-In Partners Not Rape If Man Fails To Marry Woman Says SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court in a recent case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. has held that consensual sex between live-in partners cannot amount to rape after a relationship ends and the man fails to marry her due to circumstances beyond his control.

A Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer said that when live-in partners are living together out of love and having consensual sex under the promise of marriage then the woman cannot be allowed to initiate criminal proceedings for rape in case of breakdown of relationship without tying the knot.

The verdict came on an appeal filed by a government doctor for quashing an FIR which was lodged by a nurse working under him. She alleged in her complaint that she was living with the appellant after falling in love with him and indulged in a physical relationship as he promised to marry her. However, she received the information that the appellant married another woman. Thereafter, she lodged an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(b), 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellant approached the apex court after his plea to quash FIR against him was rejected by Bombay High Court.

The Bench after examining the complaint came to the conclusion that the case of rape is not made out against him as the complainant herself admitted that she had fallen in love with the appellant and that they started living together as she needed a companion as she was a widow.

The Bench explaining the distinction between rape and consensual sex said that “The court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape," the Bench said.

"There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently," the Bench added.

The Bench taking into consideration the above-mentioned observations passed an order quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant and said that "They were in a relationship with each other for quite some time and enjoyed each other's company. It is also clear that they had been living as such for quite some time together. When she came to know that the appellant had married some other woman, she lodged the complaint. It is not her case that he has forcibly raped her. She had taken a conscious decision after active application of mind to the things that had happened. It is not a case of a passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted and there was a tacit consent and the tacit consent given by her was not the result of a misconception created in her mind. We are of the view that, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not make out a case against the appellant.”



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

need-to-safeguard-judiciary-from-unwarranted-pressures-21-ex-judges-write-letter-to-cji
Trending Legal Insiders
Need to safeguard judiciary from unwarranted pressures: 21 ex-judges write letter to CJI

21 ex-judges write to CJI Chandrachud urging protection of judiciary from pressures undermining its integrity and autonomy.

15 April, 2024 12:17 PM
sc-notice-to-ed-declines-early-date-on-plea-by-delhi-cm-arvind-kejriwal-against-arrest
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to ED; declines early date on plea by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal against arrest

SC issues notice to ED, declines early hearing on Delhi CM Kejriwal's plea against arrest in liquor scam.

15 April, 2024 03:08 PM

TOP STORIES

location-sharing-of-accused-as-bail-condition-sc-directs-google-to-explain-how-its-pin-location-sharing-work
Trending Judiciary
Location sharing of accused as bail condition: SC directs Google to explain how its PIN location-sharing work

Supreme Court directs Google to explain its PIN location-sharing feature as bail condition for accused, raising privacy concerns. Details sought on technical aspects.

09 April, 2024 02:06 PM
cant-jail-everyone-for-making-allegations-against-cm-sc-tells-tamil-nadu-government
Trending Judiciary
'Can't jail everyone for making allegations against CM,' SC tells Tamil Nadu government

Supreme Court rebukes Tamil Nadu, saying not everyone making allegations against CM can be jailed; restores bail for YouTuber Sattai.

09 April, 2024 02:07 PM
hc-dismisses-kejriwals-plea-challenging-arrest-by-ed-in-liquor-policy-case
Trending Judiciary
HC dismisses Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest by ED in liquor policy case

Delhi High Court dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by ED in liquor policy case, ruling it legal. Kejriwal remains in Tihar jail pending Supreme Court relief.

09 April, 2024 05:22 PM
sc-allows-man-to-undergo-potency-test-as-wife-claims-marriage-not-consummated-more-than-7-years-of-alliance
Trending Judiciary
SC allows man to undergo potency test as wife claims marriage not consummated more than 7 years of alliance [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court permits potency test for husband in divorce case where wife alleges marriage unconsummated after 7+ years.

09 April, 2024 05:38 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email