The Supreme Court on Monday said criminal liability cannot be easily fastened on a man involved in a live-in relationship with a woman, pointing to the “vagaries” of relationships outside the institution of marriage.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna refused to entertain an appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment which had quashed the criminal cases against a man who was accused of rape by the petitioner, with whom he was in a 15-year live-in relationship and has a child who is now seven years old.

“This is what happens in live-in relationships. For years, they live together and when they split up, the lady files a complaint against the man for sexual assault. These are all vagaries of relationships outside the marriage,” Justice Nagarathna orally told the counsel appearing for the woman.

The bench said the criminal offence of sexual assault on false promise of marriage cannot be made out from a long-term live-in relationship as it deprives the woman of various benefits like maintenance and the right to file complaints of bigamy.

“We can only sympathise with your client who has been befooled or whatever…. She went with him and had a child and lived with him for 15 years,” the court
said.

The court rejected the lawyer’s argument that the woman became a widow when she was 18 and therefore was vulnerable, which the accused exploited.

The counsel argued that the man, a state government employee who works as a tehsildar, had lured the unsuspecting woman into a physical relationship and also concealed the fact that he was already married.

“Where does the question of criminal offence arise when there is a consensual relationship? Both of them have been living together and she begets a child from him. There is no marriage and she also says there is a sexual assault,” the bench said. “For 15 years, they lived together.”

Justice Nagarathna said this was a consensual relationship. “The question is why did she go and live with him before marriage? When we ask these questions, they will say we are victim shaming,” the bench said. A case of criminal offence cannot be made, Justice Nagarathna added.