'Why did she go and live with him without marriage': SC questions widow's charge of rape in live-in relationship

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned a young widow’s decision to enter a live-in relationship while hearing a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage.

A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna was hearing a plea linked to a man accused of establishing a relationship with the woman after allegedly promising to marry her.

During the hearing, the counsel submitted that the complainant was in a vulnerable position. "He met her when she was merely an 18-year-old young widow. He promised to marry her," the counsel said.

Responding to this, Justice Nagarathna questioned the circumstances of the relationship. "Why did she go and live with him before marriage? See when we ask these questions it is said that we are victim shaming, what is this?" she remarked as reported by Live Law.

The court was told that the woman was unaware that the man was already married. The counsel further alleged that the accused had relationships with multiple women and had exploited them.

However, the bench said its focus was limited to the petitioner. "We are not concerned with other woman. We are concerned with the petitioner. Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship?" Justice Nagarathna observed.

The judge also pointed to the nature of live-in relationships. "This is what happens in live-in relationships. For years they lived together. If they split up the lady has to file a complaint against the man for sexual assault. These are all the vagaries of relationships outside marriage," she said.

The bench noted that the woman had lived with the man and had a child with him. "But why did she live with him and have a child?" the judge asked, while adding that a breakup in such cases does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.

"It doesn't become a criminal offence once he walks out," Justice Nagarathna said.

At the same time, the court acknowledged the woman’s situation. "We can sympathize with her that she got befooled or whatever. She can ask for maintenance with regard to the child. There can be illegitimate relationship but the child cannot be illegitimate," she observed.

The bench also noted that legal remedies would have been different if there had been a marriage. "If there was a marriage, her rights would have been better… Now there is no marriage...they live together... this is the risk. They can walk out any day," the judge said.

The court eventually suggested that the matter be resolved through mediation and called for a settlement between the parties.