Consent Can't Be Retrospectively Withdrawn After Consensual Physical Relationship Turns Sour: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that consent given by a woman cannot be retrospectively withdrawn so as to convert a consensual relationship into a criminal offence merely because the relationship has broken down.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that while law must remain vigilant in protecting women from genuine sexual exploitation, coercion, and abuse, it must equally guard against the misuse of its process.
“Criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument of retaliation, pressure, or personal vendetta arising out of a relationship that has irretrievably broken down. Its object is not to penalise disappointment or failed expectations, but to punish conduct that is inherently criminal,” the Court said.
It added: “When two adults consciously choose to enter into a relationship that cuts across faiths, personal laws, or customs, that choice must be informed, deliberate, and honest. It operates with known legal and personal implications, which cannot later be wished away when the relationship turns sour.”
The judge made the observations while upholding a trial court order discharging an advocate and his relatives of rape, deceitful marriage and other serious charges.
The FIR was registered in 2022 in which a woman advocate alleged that she was sexually exploited for years by the man who had allegedly concealed his religion and marital status, coerced her into marriage and threatened her with obscene photographs.
She claimed that she later discovered he was already married and that she faced intimidation and confinement during the relationship.
Rejecting the woman's plea against the acquittal, the Court noted that the relationship lasted nearly 11 years, during which the prosecutrix lived openly with the accused, pursued legal education, practised as an advocate and interacted socially without lodging complaints.
It held that the material showed that the prosecutrix was aware of the accused's religion and marital status, negating offences of deceitful marriage.
“It is also material to note that where a woman practising one religion chooses to marry a man practising another religion, with full knowledge of his identity, works alongside him as an advocate, and appears with him in courts of law, it is difficult to accept a later plea that she was unaware of his religious identity or was misled in that regard,” the judge said.
Further, the Court observed that the prosecutrix, as a legally trained person, would also have been conscious of the implications of personal laws, religious practices, and marital norms, as well as the legal consequences flowing from such a relationship.
It said that where an adult, educated individual knowingly enters into a relationship, participates in ceremonies under different religious customs, and continues that relationship over a long period, law cannot later be invoked to erase the consequences of that choice merely because the relationship has soured.
“Criminal law is meant to protect genuine victims of crime, not to rewrite the history of a relationship that was voluntarily entered into, publicly acknowledged, and sustained over several years. A relationship known to society and affirmed by conduct cannot later be retrospectively labelled as criminal solely because it did not culminate in the manner expected by one party,” the Court said.
Title: MS A v. STATE & ORS