NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a prolonged physical relationship between two consenting adults, without protests or repeated demands for marriage, indicates consent rather than a relationship based on false promises of marriage.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh emphasized the growing trend of consensual relationships being criminalized when they end, stressing the need to distinguish them from deceitful promises of marriage.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court seeks Ashish Mishra’s response on witness threat allegations in Lakhimpur Kheri case
The case, dating back to 2012, involved a social worker accused of sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that the accused coerced her into a physical relationship by promising to marry her. The accused argued that the relationship was consensual, with financial disputes being the real cause of the allegations.
The Supreme Court noted the absence of objections or demands for marriage during their nine-year relationship and ruled that the prolonged physical association reflected mutual consent rather than a false promise of marriage.
The Court emphasized that the lack of resistance or demand for marriage over an extended period neutralized claims of criminal culpability. It concluded that financial disputes, not unfulfilled promises of marriage, were likely behind the allegations.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court rejects plea for paper ballots, electoral reforms
By quashing the criminal case, the Court reinforced the principle that consensual relationships cannot be retroactively criminalized when they end unfavourably. The accused was represented by Advocates Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Mrunal Dattatraya Buva, and Dhairyashil Salunkhe, while Advocate Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for the complainant and the State.
This judgment sets an important precedent in distinguishing between consensual relationships and those initiated under pretences, ensuring a balanced approach to criminal jurisprudence.