Consensual Sex Between Live-in Partners Cannot Be Categorised As Rape if Man Fails To Keep Marriage Promise, Says Supreme Court

·2-min read

New Delhi, March 2: Consensual sex between live-in partners cannot be categorised as rape if the man failed to keep his promise of marriage to the woman, the Supreme Court remarked on Monday. The apex court made the remark while hearing on a petition filed by a man pertaining to the quashing of an FIR against him. The woman alleged that the man had indulged in sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. 'Will You Marry Her?' Supreme Court Asks Rape Accused Seeking Protection from Arrest.

Also Read | 'Will You Marry Her?' Supreme Court Asks Rape Accused Seeking Protection from Arrest

"Making a false promise to marry is wrong. Even a woman should not promise to marry and then break away. But that does not mean in a prolonged live-in relationship, sexual intercourse would be categorised as rape," a bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said. The petitioner and the woman were in a live-in relationship for five years. The man finally married another woman, after which she lodged an FIR alleging rape on the false promise of marriage. Supreme Court Acquits Man of 20 Years Old Charges of Rape & Cheating, Says 'No Woman After Being Sexually Assaulted at Knifepoint Can Live in For 4 Years'.

Appearing for the woman, advocate Aditya Vashisht told the bench that the man had lived with his client promising marriage. He also said that he had inflicted violence on her by brutally beating her and presented the medical certificate of the injuries before the court, according to a report by Live Law. Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for the man, termed the woman's allegations false and alleged that she had done the same to two other men.

Also Read | Ohio State University’s 'Sex Week' Sees XXX Website OnlyFans Event to Help Students 'Start' and 'Destigmatise' Sex Work

While the Supreme Court refused to quash the FIR, it granted the accused protection from arrest for eight weeks. "It is a good case for you to seek discharge from the trial court," the top court told the petitioner.

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting