The Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman’s alleged consent for a sexual relationship, based on an illegal surrogacy agreement disguised as a live-in relationship contract, holds no legal validity under Indian law.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh made the observation while refusing to quash rape charges against a man from Osmanabad. The accused had claimed that the relationship was consensual and governed by a written agreement between him, the woman, his wife, and the woman’s mother.

The agreement stated that the woman would live with him for a year, bear his child, and relinquish any claim to the child in return for money. However, the Court held that such a surrogacy arrangement, made for commercial purposes, is illegal in India and cannot form the basis of valid consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with consent obtained under fear or misconception.

"Prima facie, we are of the opinion that such consent under an illegal document cannot be a consent under Section 90 of IPC," the Bench said.

The woman, who worked as a maid in the accused’s home, alleged in her FIR that she had been sexually assaulted and physically abused for months. She claimed she was forcibly confined and beaten when she tried to leave. Medical reports revealed nine injuries, and her version was supported by her mother and a family friend.

The accused had also relied on an affidavit submitted by the woman during his bail proceedings, where she called the FIR a misunderstanding. However, the Court noted the complainant's poor socio-economic condition and her apparent lack of understanding of the legal consequences of such an agreement.

“This agreement is against public policy... No sane married lady would do it in such a way,” the Court remarked, adding that the arrangement seemed designed to exploit the complainant’s vulnerable condition.

Holding that there was sufficient material for the case to go to trial, the Court dismissed the man’s plea to quash the proceedings.

Advocate MA Tandale appeared for the accused; Additional Public Prosecutor SA Gaikwad represented the State, while Advocate Akash D Gade appeared for the complainant.