The Supreme Court has held that a prolonged live-in relationship between two consenting adults cannot be presumed to be based on a false promise of marriage. Accordingly, a woman’s allegation of rape on such grounds was found untenable.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra observed that when two able-minded adults cohabit as a couple for an extended period, there is a presumption that the relationship was entered into voluntarily and with full awareness of its implications.

“In our view, if two able-minded adults reside together as a live-in couple for more than a couple of years and cohabit with each other, a presumption would arise that they voluntarily chose that kind of a relationship fully aware of its consequences,” the Court noted. It further added that such relationships may involve discussions about marriage, but that alone does not indicate the relationship was predicated on a marriage promise.

The Court acknowledged the changing social dynamics, stating that live-in relationships are now more prevalent, especially as more women become financially independent and make informed life choices.

In such cases, the Court emphasized the need to move beyond a rigid legal approach and consider the nature and duration of the relationship to infer implied consent, irrespective of any unfulfilled desire to marry.

The observations were made while quashing a rape and assault FIR against Ravish Singh Rana, filed by a woman with whom he had shared a live-in relationship for a couple of years after meeting on Facebook. The woman alleged that Rana had physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, assaulted her during the relationship, and later refused to marry her.

However, the Supreme Court found no material particulars to support the assault and abuse allegations, and ruled that mere refusal to marry does not constitute rape.

“We are of the view that on ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape,” the Court held, setting aside the High Court order that had earlier rejected Rana’s plea to quash the FIR.

Advocates Gautam Barnwal, Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Nishant Gill, Saksham Kumar, Aakash, and Mukesh Kumar appeared for Rana. The respondents were represented by Advocates Vanshaja Shukla, Ajay Bahuguna, Siddhant Yadav, Garvesh Kabra, and Pallavi Kumari.