Supreme Court says ending live-in relationship not a crime, stresses consent in sexual assault cases
Supreme Court ruled that ending a live-in relationship is not a criminal offence, emphasising that consent plays a crucial role in determining rape allegations. The court highlighted complexities in long-term consensual relationships
PTC Web Desk: The Supreme Court has observed that merely ending a live-in relationship does not amount to a criminal offence, while underlining the complexities and risks associated with such arrangements in the absence of a formal marriage.
The remarks came from Justice BV Nagarathna during the hearing of a petition filed by a woman who accused a man of rape and assault, alleging that he had deceived her with a promise of marriage. The court drew a clear distinction between consensual relationships and criminal acts, stressing the importance of examining the nature of consent in such cases.
During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that when two adults voluntarily choose to live together, the relationship is based on mutual consent. She questioned how allegations of sexual assault could arise after a long-term consensual arrangement, especially when the couple had lived together for years and even had a child.
Addressing concerns that such observations could be viewed as insensitive, the judge acknowledged that questions around consent are often criticised as victim-shaming. However, she maintained that determining whether consent existed is essential to establishing if a criminal offence has been committed.
The court also noted a pattern in some cases where disputes emerge after the breakdown of live-in relationships, leading to allegations of sexual offences. Justice Nagarathna described these situations as reflective of the uncertainties and challenges that can arise outside the framework of marriage.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, the woman, a widow, had met the accused at the age of 18 and entered into the relationship based on his assurance of marriage. It was later claimed that the man was already married at the time, a fact allegedly concealed from her.
The matter remains under consideration, with the court continuing to examine the circumstances surrounding consent and the allegations made.