Can't accept claim of rape on promise of marriage in a long-term live-in relationship: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that if two adults reside together as a live-in couple for a long period, it cannot be accepted that the relationship started on a promise of marriage and hence the woman's claim of rape on false promise of marriage cannot be accepted [Ravish Singh Rana v The State of Uttarakhand & Anr]. .A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra held that there is a presumption in such a case that the couple chose the relationship voluntarily and were fully aware of its consequences.“In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences. Therefore, the allegation that such relationship was entered because there was a promise of marriage is in the circumstances unworthy of acceptance, particularly, when there is no allegation that such physical relationship would not have been established had there been no promise to marry,” the Bench said. .It stressed that in a long-term live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties express their desire to formalise the same by a seal of marriage, but that desire by itself would not be indicative of the relationship being a consequence of that wish. The Court added that a decade or two earlier, live-in relationships might not have been common, but now more women are financially independent, who can make conscious decisions about their lives and this has led to a proliferation of live-in relationships. “Therefore, when a matter of this nature comes to a court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather the Court may, based on the length of such relationship and conduct of the parties, presume implied consent of the parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond.”.The Court made these observations while quashing a first information report (FIR) of rape and assault against a man named Ravish Singh Rana on the complaint of a woman with whom he was in a live-in relationship for a couple of years. It was stated that the couple met on Facebook and began a live-in relationship. The woman alleged that Rana established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. She added that during this relationship, she was beaten by Rana. She further said that when she insisted on marriage, Rana refused, threatened her and established physical relations forcibly. .After considering the case, the apex court quashed the case and set aside the High Court order rejecting Rana’s plea. "We are of the view that on ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape. The other allegations of assault and abuse have not been supported by any material particulars," the Court stated..Advocates Gautam Barnwal, Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Nishant Gill, Saksham Kumar, Aakash and Mukesh Kumar appeared for petitioner Ravish Singh Rana. Advocates Vanshaja Shukla, Ajay Bahuguna, Siddhant Yadav, Garvesh Kabra, Pallavi Kumari represented the respondents. .[Read Order]