'Lived with man for 15 years, had a child,' SC refuses woman's plea for rape on false promise of marriage

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked as to how a charge of a rape based on a false promise of marriage could arise from a long-term live-in relationship where the couple cohabited and even had a child.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan queried the petitioner’s counsel about the existence of the essential ingredients of the offence and questioned the legal consequences of the relationship's breakdown.

“Why did she go and live with him before marriage? See, now if we ask these questions, they say we are victim-shaming. What is this,” the bench asked, while hearing a case alleging rape on the false pretext of marriage. 

Having noted the parties had lived together for about 15 years and had a child, the bench asked, "Once he (accused) walks out, does it become a criminal offence?" 

The woman claimed that the man lured her at a young age, concealing the fact that he was already married. It was alleged that the man promised to marry her and entered into a relationship with her. 

The bench further asked, "Why did she go live with him and have a child? Now she is saying sexual assault."

It was claimed that the petitioner was unaware that the accused was already married and later discovered he had relationships with other women. Petitioner’s counsel contended that the allegation was that he sexually assaulted her and made a false promise of marriage. The counsel contended that the accused met her when she was merely 18 years old.

The bench referred to the decade-long relationship and questioned the applicability of criminal charges. The bench observed, "So, there was a consensual relationship. They were living together."

"She had a child, and then she filed a complaint of sexual assault and all that... Where is the offence," the bench asked.

Petitioner’s counsel claimed that the accused had similarly exploited other women. 

"We are not concerned about what he is doing to other women. We are concerned about this petitioner,” the bench said. 

“15 years? At this point of time, she has filed a complaint," the bench wondered.

The bench told the counsel, “We can only sympathise with the petitioner. She went with him, had a child, and lived with him for 15 years." 

The court said that the petitioner may pursue other remedies, including maintenance for the child. The bench stressed that invoking criminal law requires a clear establishment of an offence, and after hearing submissions, it referred the dispute to mediation.

The petitioner approached before the apex court against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to quash her FIR against her former live-in partner.