The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman may not be able to accuse a man of forcing sexual relations on her through a promise of marriage if the two were in a long-term live-in relationship.
The man can’t be charged for rape if the couple was living together for a long period of time, the top court ruled, saying that in such cases, it is hard to determine whether the reason behind the sexual relations was just the promise of marriage, said a report by the Times of India.
The case in question was of a bank manager who was charged by his live-in partner of 16 years, a lecturer, of rape by saying that he established sexual relations with her over fake promise of marriage. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashed the criminal proceedings against the man, saying that both the parties were well-educated and were in a consensual relationship.
Stating that both the partners would visit each other even when they were posted in different towns, the top court called the case a live-in relationship gone sour, the TOI report said.
“It is hard to believe that the complainant kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest to any quarter that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of a false promise of marriage,” the report quoted the bench as saying.
The court also said that a long period of the relationship also pointed that there was no deceit between the two parties. “The prolonged period of 16 years during which the sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship,” the court added.
The Supreme Court also said that such claims, that the sexual relations were continued solely on the promise of marriage, lose credibility due to the prolonged nature of the relationship. Even if a false promise of marriage was supposedly made, the woman staying in the relationship for such a long time undermines her claim, the court said.
