In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that a claim of rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained in the context of a long-term live-in relationship between consenting adults. The judgment comes in the case of Ravish Singh Rana v. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr, where the Court quashed a rape and assault FIR lodged by a woman who had been in a live-in relationship with the accused for several years.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra observed that in such situations, a presumption arises that both individuals voluntarily entered the relationship with full awareness of its nature and 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,” the Court noted.
The woman, who had met Rana on Facebook, alleged that he engaged in sexual relations with her under the pretext of marriage, and later refused to marry her, threatened her, and assaulted her. However, the Court found no material particulars to support the claims of assault or abuse.
Highlighting the changing societal context, the Bench said:
“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.”
The Court further emphasized the need for judicial restraint and realistic assessment in such cases:
“The Court 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.”
Setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision and quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court concluded:
“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.”
This ruling underscores the evolving judicial perspective on live-in relationships and the importance of evaluating allegations within the broader context of mutual consent and adult autonomy.
Case: Ravish Singh Rana vs The State of Uttarakhand & Anr – Available on LAWFYI.IO
