'Why She Lived With Him Before Marriage?' : Supreme Court Questions Charge Of Sex On False Marriage Promise

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned how a criminal offence of sexual assault on false promise of marriage could be made out from a long-term live-in relationship where the parties lived together and had a child.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a woman's plea against Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to quash her FIR under Sections 69, 115(2) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024, against her former live-in partner, accused of exploitation on the promise of marriage.

The woman alleged that the man lured her at a young age, concealing the fact that he was already married.

“Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They are living together and she begets a child from him and then there is no marriage and then she says sexual assault? For how long they lived together? For 15 years they lived together”, Justice Nagarathna asked.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was a friend of the complainant's brother-in-law and had manipulated her and misused her vulnerability after she became a widow at a young age. It was argued that the accused had promised to marry her and had sexually exploited her.

Justice Nagarathna, however, repeatedly questioned the nature of the relationship. She questioned why the complainant had entered into a live-in relationship and continued in it for years before filing a complaint. “Why did she go and live with him before marriage? Now we ask these questions, they will say we are victim-shaming. What is this?” she asked.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused was already married at the time and had concealed this fact. It was submitted that the complainant was about 18 years old when she met the accused and that he had assured her that he would marry her. The counsel argued that she entered into the relationship on that basis and was later abandoned.

Justice Nagarathna said that in such relationships, if parties separate, it does not automatically amount to a criminal offence. “She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out that is the risk in a live in relationship. So once he walks out, it doesn't become a criminal offence”, she said.

Justice Nagarathna remarked the woman would have had better rights had she been married to the accused, however, when parties live together without marriage, the risk is that they can walk out any day.

“These are all the vagaries of a relationship outside marriage…See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together. This is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?”

Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the promise to marry was false from the beginning and that the accused had exploited the complainant's situation as a young widow. It was also argued that the accused had multiple relationships with other women and was misusing his position as a government servant.

The Court declined to go into allegations relating to other women and confined itself to the present case. Justice Nagarathna also questioned the delay in filing the complaint.

“Why at this point of time she has filed a complaint after how many years? See, they are all live in relationship. If they split, the lady has to file a complaint against on the man for sexual assault?”, she said.

Justice Nagarathna said that even if the complainant had been “befooled”, the facts showed a long live-in relationship resulting in the birth of a child. She suggested that the complainant could pursue remedies such as maintenance for the child, observing that the child could not be treated as illegitimate. She suggested mediation to consider monetary support for the child.

“Even if he is put behind bars, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child. Child is now 7 years. So he (accused) has deserted her. Will you go for mediation? At least some monetary compensation can be made for the child”, she said.

The Court issued notice returnable on May 25, primarily to ascertain whether a settlement could be reached between the petitioner and the accused.

Case no. – Diary No. 16669 / 2026

Case Title – Prosecutrix of Crime No. 27/2025 v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Related- Long Cohabitation Implies Couple's Consent To Continue Live-in Relationship Without Marriage : Supreme Court