Supreme Court rules that a woman cannot claim rape if she was in a long-term live-in relationship.

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman in a long-term live-in relationship cannot claim she was forced into a physical relationship under the promise of marriage to bring rape charges against her partner. The court stated that in such cases, it cannot be definitively concluded that physical relations occurred solely due to the promise of marriage. The ruling came while quashing criminal proceedings against a bank official who was accused of rape by his live-in partner.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the plea of a woman lecturer who alleged that she had been in a sexual relationship with the accused for 16 years based on his promise of marriage. The court observed that both parties were well-educated and willingly maintained a consensual relationship, frequently visiting each other’s residences despite living in different towns. The court concluded that the case reflected a failed love affair or a bitter live-in relationship.

The Supreme Court highlighted the long duration of the relationship, asserting that the 16 years of intimacy made it difficult to believe that the woman was sexually exploited under the pretext of marriage. "It is hard to believe that the complainant kept on bending to the demands of the appellant for a period of nearly 16 years without raising any protest that the appellant was exploiting her sexually under the pretext of a false promise of marriage," the court said.

The judgment also noted that even if a false promise of marriage was made, the prolonged nature of the relationship undermined the complainant’s claim that her consent was entirely based on the expectation of marriage. The court emphasized that such claims lose credibility when the relationship continues for an extended period, concluding that there was no element of force or deceit in the relationship.

As a result, the court quashed the rape charges and dismissed the case, further reinforcing that long-term consensual relationships cannot be automatically construed as exploitative based on a promise of marriage.