Live-In Relation A By-Product Of Constitutional Guarantee Of Art 21; It Promotes Promiscuity, Lascivious Behavior: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently termed the bane of live-in-relationship as a by-product of the Constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, and has observed that such relations promote 'promiscuity' and 'lascivious behavior', giving further rise to sexual offences."Those who wanted to exploit this freedom are quick to embrace it but are totally ignorant that it has its own limitations, and does not confer any right on any of the partners to such relationship," the bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar further remarked as it rejected the anticipatory bail of a 25-year-old man who has been accused of raping a woman, with whom he allegedly had a live in relation."The bane of live-in-relationship is a by-product of the Constitutional guarantee as provided under Art.21 of the Constitution, engulfing the ethos of Indian society, and promoting promiscuity and lascivious behavior, giving further rise to sexual offences" : Madhya Pradesh HC. pic.twitter.com/k63pXWrKiO— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 19, 2022The case in briefAn FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix/victim against the accused-applicant alleging that she was friends with the present applicant and at one point of time, he called her to his room and offered her cold drink and after drinking of which she fell unconscious and thereafter he committed rape on her.Allegedly, he also made a video of the same and subsequently, he kept on committing rape on her on the threat that he would viral her video with him. Further, it was also alleged hat the prosecutrix also got pregnant for more than a couple of times and got it terminated, allegedly under the pressure of the present applicant.Now, when the prosecutrix was engaged to someone by her father, the applicant started harassing her parents, her uncle, and her fiancé and his family by sending messages, photographs and also threatening them that if the prosecutrix marries some other person, he would viral her videos and photographs.Pursuant to the lodging of FIR and neing booked for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 328, 313, 506 and 34 of IPC, the applicant moved to the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.Court's observations and orderAt the outset, the Court noted that as per the case diary and the various documents filed by the applicant, it was apparent that the prosecutrix and the applicant were having live-in-relationship for quite some time and during this time, the prosecutrix also got pregnant for more than a couple of times and had to terminate the same allegedly under the pressure of the present applicant. The Court further noted that subsequently, things got sore between them, and when the prosecutrix was engaged to some other person, the applicant, being a jilted lover, resorted to blackmailing the prosecutrix and sent his video clips to the in-laws of the prosecutrix that he would commit suicide and for which they would also be held responsible together with the family of the prosecutrix. Calling the acts of the applicant 'serious', the Court opined the applicant had sent the video clips with a view to make sure that the proposed marriage of the prosecutrix does not get materialized. "How much stress his acts must have caused to the prosecutrix, her family members as also other persons is not difficult to comprehend," the Court remarked.Against this backdrop, taking note of the spurt of such offences in recent times arising out of live-in-relationship, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea as it observed thus:"...this court is forced to observe that the bane of live-in-relationship is a by-product of Constitutional guarantee as provided under Art.21 of the Constitution, engulfing the ethos of Indian society, and promoting promiscuity and lascivious behavior, giving further rise to sexual offences. Those who wanted to exploit this freedom are quick to embrace it but are totally ignorant that it has its own limitations, and does not confer any right on any of the partners to such relationship. The applicant appears to have fallen into this trap and portraying himself as a victim, has assumed that once he has a relationship with the prosecutrix, he can also force himself upon her for all the time to come, having her various photographs and video clips etc..."Case Title - ABHISHEK v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHCitation:Click Here To Read/Download Order

Live-In Relation A By-Product Of Constitutional Guarantee Of Art 21; It Promotes Promiscuity, Lascivious Behavior: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags