‘She Lived With Him for 15 Years’ — Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Rape Charge in Long-Term Live-In Case
The bench questioned whether a criminal sexual assault charge can arise from a decade-and-a-half consensual relationship, asking if women in live-in arrangements fully bear the legal risks when such unions break down.
By Court Reporter | April 28, 2026 | New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Monday raised sharp questions about whether a woman who spent 15 years in a live-in relationship — and had a child with her partner — could sustain a criminal charge of sexual assault on the basis of a false promise of marriage, signalling scepticism about the case even as it issued notice to the accused.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition filed by a woman from Madhya Pradesh, challenging the High Court’s decision to quash her FIR against her former live-in partner under Sections 69, 115(2) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024. The woman alleged she was deceived into the relationship as a young widow after the man — a friend of her brother-in-law — concealed that he was already married.
Justice Nagarathna pressed the petitioner’s counsel repeatedly on the nature and duration of the relationship. “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?” she asked. “For 15 years they lived together.”
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused had deliberately exploited the complainant’s vulnerability as a young widow, falsely promising marriage while concealing his existing marital status. The woman was around 18 years old when she first met him, it was submitted.
The bench drew a distinction between the legal remedies available in marriage versus live-in arrangements, noting that a formal marriage would have given the woman recourse to bigamy laws and maintenance. “He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Once he walks out, it doesn’t become a criminal offence,” Justice Nagarathna observed. “This is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?”
When the woman’s counsel raised allegations about the man’s relationships with other women and his misuse of his position as a government servant, the court declined to widen the inquiry, confining itself to the facts of the present case.
The bench also flagged the delay in filing the complaint and suggested that rather than criminal prosecution, the more practical remedy may lie in securing maintenance for the couple’s seven-year-old child, proposing mediation between the parties. “Even if he is put behind bars, what will she gain?” Justice Nagarathna said.
The Supreme Court issued notice returnable on May 25, primarily to explore the possibility of a settlement.
